Abdul Attacks Ogden

I'm just not sure what is going on with journalist, blogger, and former radio personality Abdul-Hakim Shabazz lately.  Abdul has always been a bit of a Republican fan boy, but he seems to be really over the top with it here lately.

Abdul just posted a quick blog that did little but attack fellow blogger Paul Ogden.  But why?

I would normally post a quick little blurb from the post I am referring to, but in this case Abdul's post is so small that I simply ask you to follow the link.

This attack seems so forced and out of the ordinary that it makes me ask why Abdul posted it.  What in the world is going on behind the scenes here?

Abdul and Ogden are both known to comment on this blog.  I hope they'll both submit their thoughts below.

Governor Daniels Also Nonchalant About Misplaced Half-Billion Dollars

The other day I wrote about how I found it disturbing that Abdul-Hakim Shabazz seemed rather dismissive about the importance of the state finding what now totals to be over $500 million in just a few months.  Apparently Abdul is not alone.

The Star's Matthew Tully has reported that Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, too, is being completely nonchalant about the enormous mix-up as well:

Not that he's apologizing. When the state realized it had misplaced $320 million several months ago, Daniels treated it like a joke, talking like a college student who'd just found $20 worth of beer money in an old pair of jeans, as if important budget decisions hadn't been made on the faulty numbers.

And on Thursday the state put out a news release that downplayed the newest mistake, writing of "programming errors" and mentioning not the $206 million but the smaller "$13 million per month" mistake. That's like Tiger Woods telling his wife, "Hey, I averaged only one affair a month!"

I just don't get it.  I understand that the state is charged with handling an incredible amount of money and that sometimes there will be some change that falls through the cracks.  This isn't just pocket change, though.  This is more than half a billion dollars of hard-earned Hoosier taxpayer's money.  To treat this issue as anything but severe not only downplays the enormous sums of money involved, it also downplays the value of a dollar to the taxpayers to whom the money truly belongs.

Daniels, Abdul, and everyone in the state should be calling for heads to roll for these pieces of terrible financial mismanagement.  I hope they revisit the issue soon and reword their attitudes on the subject.

First Detailed Numbers Released on Super Bowl Costs

Shortly after the Super Bowl, I wrote about the possibility for Indianapolis to get an ROI on their hosting of Super Bowl XVI.  The newest report on the cost associated with that event seem to make the possibility of an ROI more plausible.

According to a Sunday Star article by Jon Murray, the CIB now believes its loss from hosting the Super Bowl will be approximately $350,000.  Previous estimates had that number as high as $800,000.

From that article:

The Capital Improvement Board says it spent just over $3 million on items ranging from labor to service contracts to equipment for snow removal -- a precaution that, because of balmy weather, didn't end up being needed.

But reimbursements from the National Football League and its contractors, already mostly in, are expected to offset nearly $2.7 million of that.

That leaves about $350,000 that will be footed by the CIB's budget -- better than the $810,000 loss that was projected based on estimates compiled last summer.

Indianapolis did a spectacular job hosting the Super Bowl.  That $350,000 has the possibility to be easily made up through the extra revenue brought in over the next several years should Indy's convention business get a significant spike due to it.

I fear, though, that readers of the Star's article will reach the conclusion that the CIB was the only organization that spent significant money to host the Big Game.  Several other significant expenses, such as the Georgia Street project, would never have been incurred were we not hosting the Super Bowl.  Those expenses need to be included in the total profit/loss statement for the city.  As I stated in my previous article, we are unlikely to ever have the complete expense of hosting the Super Bowl revealed to us.

5 Reasons to Believe 2012 is Going to be a Big Year for Libertarians

Libertarians have been around long enough to have had good years and bad years.  They've won a few elections here and there, and have been appointed to plenty of offices.  People have shown an enormous interest in their political philosophy, but just haven't got around to voting for them in big numbers yet.

Still, the Libertarian Party has seen considerable growth.  Indiana represents one of the stronger Libertarian states in the nation and is often (not regularly, but often) included in main stream news stories about what's going on in politics around the area.

2012, though, represents a year that has the potential to really see the Libertarian Party explode.  If things come together right, this year has the makings to create a perfect storm for Libertarian growth.  It may not be the year that they win a ton of big elections, but it could very well be the year that sets them up for big wins down the road.

Here's five reasons why the LP just might make the leap into the mainstream this year:

1) Ron Paul - The longtime Texas Congressman is running for President.  He, for all intents and purposes, is a Libertarian.  He was even the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate back in 1988.  He's held office as and is running as a Republican, but has made no secret over the years that he is strongly committed to libertarian ideals.  People on both sides of the aisle, love him or hate him, have made comments that he is the most principled and consistent member of Congress in the last 30 years.  He also brings with him one of the most passionate and engaged group of supporters you'll find in a candidate.

But let me let you in on a little secret....Ron Paul is not going to win the Republican nomination.  And at the point where that is made official, either by his dropping out or by it becoming mathematically impossible, all of those hardcore Ron Paul supporters are going to have to turn their energy elsewhere.  Which brings us to...

2) Gary Johnson - The former New Mexico Governor also held office as a Republican.  He, too, was running for President as a Republican, but dropped out of the race after being excluded from early debates and not grabbing any real support from the GOP.  Even as a Republican, Johnson was also very libertarian-minded.  He cut costs and refused to sign any bill that increased taxes.  In fact, he refused to sign pretty much any bill that ever extended the size or scope of government.  Over his two terms as New Mexico's Governor, Johnson vetoed over 750 bills...a number that Johnson proudly states was more than all other governors at the time...combined.

Johnson doesn't have enormous name recognition across the nation, but he arguably has better name recognition than any of the Libertarian presidential candidates of the last several election cycles. According to a recent Public Policy Polling poll, Johnson is currently polling at 7% versus Obama and Romney.  

Seven percent doesn't sound like an important number, but is is.  You see, to qualify for participation in the Presidential debates, there are a handful of prerequisites.  Most importantly, you have to be on enough states' ballots to mathematically be able to win a majority of the electoral votes.  Being a Libertarian candidate, Johnson will qualify easily for that.  Another debate participation requirement is polling at at least 15% in five major polls leading up to the debates.

So why should you believe that Gary Johnson has a shot at polling at least 15% heading into the debates?  For that answer, we refer back to my #1...Ron Paul.  You see, when Ron Paul publicly acknowledges that he will not be the Republican nominee, he'll have to make a big decision about who, if anyone to endorse.  He could endorse Mitt Romney.  Since Paul will no longer be a Republican Congressman, something tells me his ideals may keep him from throwing his support that way.

Paul may choose to endorse no one...definitely a possibility since there are no Republican candidate will truly match with his political ideology.  But if Paul wanted to endorse the candidate that most shares his views, he'll be endorsing Gary Johnson.  And with Ron Paul's endorsement comes the possibility of gaining the support of a large chunk of Ron Paul's followers.  If enough of the Paul supporters begin to follow Johnson, Johnson will easily eclipse the 15% support number to find himself in the national debates.  

Making it into the debates will bring a lot of attention to the LP from people that have never considered them before.  Making it to the debate, for many who are skeptical about a third party, suddenly makes them viable.

3) Mitt Romney and Barack Obama - There are two kinds of Obama supporters...those that will support him no matter what, and those that supported hope and change in 2008 and find themselves disgusted with him today.  Those that are die-hard supporters will be voting for him in November no matter what.  Those that are disgusted are looking for another option.  

On the Republican side, it looks like that option will be Mitt Romney.  Hardcore Republicans will be supporting Romney because he has an "R" next to his name, but other other voters are unlikely to find Romney to be a refreshing option.

Those disgusted with Obama and not finding Romney refreshing are, in any other election year, those that are just going to stay home on election day.  If Gary Johnson can prove to them that he represents the change they want to see, then they just may be willing to go out and vote for him.  If not out of thinking he can win, then perhaps out of a statement of principle.

4) Rupert Boneham - It's taking a while for many members of the voting public to warm up to the idea of voting for a former reality TV star for Indiana's Governor, but it is happening.  When Rupert first announced he was considering an Indiana gubernatorial chase as a Libertarian, many, including this author, were unsure if it was a good idea.  A lot of people worked very hard for a lot of years to grow the positive public perception of the Libertarian Party, and letting a celebrity run for the state's top spot seemed a dangerous gamble with the potential to throw it all away.

After looking beyond his television past and furry beard, though, people are beginning to see Rupert's strong philanthropic side and sensible ideas for running the state.  Many skeptics are meeting with Boneham and walking away saying, "Hey, this guy is for real.  He's worth giving a listen to."  Really, in politics, getting people to open their ears to you is where it all begins.

But even if Boneham doesn't put a dent in Indiana politics, he's already increasing name recognition for the Libertarians.  From the second he announced he was running, there have been countless national news stories on the campaign.  Win or lose, the fact that Rupert Boneham running for Indiana Governor is great news for a Libertarian Party that has often had trouble getting into mainstream news.

5) Ross Perot - Whhhhaaaaaaaa?!!?  How in the hell, you ask, can Ross Perot help the Libertarians in 2012?

The simple answer is that he can't.  Ross Perot isn't going to directly do anything to help the Libertarians in 2012.  But he has the unique position of having provided a historical precedent that we all need to remember.

I'm old enough now that I have to consider that many of my readers don't know much about Ross Perot.  Perot is a Texas billionaire that ran for president as an independent in 1992.  He polled very strongly throughout most of the race, participated in the presidential debates, and ended up taking down about 20% of the popular vote in that year's election.

So what does an independent candidate from 20 years ago have to do with us today?  It has to do with the overused argument that people just aren't ready yet to vote for a candidate in a major race that isn't a Republican or Democrat.  Ross Perot, I submit, is evidence not only that we are ready to vote for such a candidate, but also that we have been ready to do so for at least twenty years.  Perhaps we've just been waiting for the right candidate to present themselves.

So does all this mean that 2012 is the Year of the Libertarian?  Maybe, maybe not.  It definitely has all the right pieces to make it happen, though.  It is going to be very interesting to see if the pieces will come together.

City Waiting for More Riders in Dangerous Bike Lanes

The Star's Jon Murray has an article this morning on the miles and miles of new bike lanes the city has created.

"You may have heard the grumbles throughout winter as Indianapolis drivers navigated around slivers of streets marked off for miles and miles with freshly painted bike lanes. And, often, not a bicyclist in sight.

"As prime cycling weather takes hold --and as motorists grapple with what the sometimes-confusing markings and sympointbols all mean --now comes the test for the city's newly expanded 64-mile network of on-street bikeways: Will bicyclists start using them?"

I wouldn't count on it. Most cyclists I've spoken with are planning on avoiding the routes. The term "death trap" has often been used to describe the new paths. As the Star article points out, the paths are confusing, especially to motorists. That confusion is bound to increased car vs. bicycle police reports being completed.

Read the whole article here:

Now that it has built the bike lanes, the city is waiting for the riders to come | Indianapolis Star | indystar.com

Abdul Resorts to a Complete Spin Approach to Half a Billion Dollars in Lost Money

I'm not naive.  Blogs are not pure and unbiased journalism.  They are sources of commentary. People read blogs for the ideas more than they read them for the news.  That being said, sometimes you read a blog and can't help but shake your head and say, "are you serious?!?"

Today is one of those days.  It's no secret that I am a fan of journalist/blogger and former Indy radio personality Abdul-Hakim Shabazz.  He's got a bit of an ego about him, but that's what makes him fun.  And when you are around him in person, he just brings an energy and aura with him that's rather contagious.

Sometimes, though, Abdul is just over the top when it comes to being a homer for various Republican administrations.  Today, on his Indy Politics website, Abdul posted a blog about how the $500 million dollars in misplaced taxpayer money that has turned up just isn't that big of a deal.  Embarrassing, he admits, but really nothing to worry about since we're not in the financial bind that other states are in.

From that blog:

Although I write about Indiana government and politics I spend a lot of time paying attention to other state governments, I’m kind of a dork that way.  And when I look at the current financial situations in other states, I am willing to bet the $529 million in total revenue the state misplaced and tell you there are a lot of other places that wish they had Indiana’s problems. 

In other words, in Indiana, the problem may be missing money, in more than two dozen other states, money isn’t missing, it’s just not there.  According to theCenter on Budget Policy and Priorities, 30 states have projected shortfalls for next fiscal year and have had to engage in drastic spending cuts or raise taxes over the 2011-2013 budget years.

Okay, Abdul...I see where your going here.  At least we can misplace a half a billion dollars and still have a surplus.  Your spin on the stories really make it sound like you don't care, though, about the misplacement of such an enormous sum of taxpayer money.  That's just silly.

Yes, many other states are having a budget disaster.  No, Indiana is not one of them.  Comparing what is going on there to what is going on here, though, is apples to oranges.  Instead of saying "I'd rather have our problem than their problem," you should be saying, "both these problems are completely irresponsible and cannot be tolerated."

In fact, Abdul, you are one of the first ones to pipe up about the hypocrisies of the statements made by people on the left sometimes.  I find myself wondering how your story would have sounded if this had occurred in a Bayh or O'Bannon administration.

Tully: Rupert a Welcome Voice in Gubernatorial Chase

The Indy Star's Matthew Tully today wrote an interesting piece on Rupert Boneham. He makes the point that, although Rupert may not have millions in his warchest, he is a legitimate candidate and is the only one talking real issues right now.

Matthew Tully: Rupert Boneham plans to win governor's seat | Indianapolis Star | indystar.com