Rupert Campaign Unveils RV to Tour the State With

The campaign of Libertarian Gubernatorial Candidate Rupert Boneham today introduced an RV that Rupert will use to visit all 92 Indiana Counties.

Boneham's campaign manager, Evan McMahon, said the RV was chosen because,

"We don't have millions of dollars in corporate sponsors, like the establishment candidates do.  Instead of bombarding TV and Radio with poll tested sound bites, Rupert is going on the road...so people can really understand who he is and what he stands for.  Face to face with Hoosiers in their communities."

No word yet from the campaign where the RV might make its first appearance in its tour around the Hoosier State.  According to the campaign's Facebook page, though, you can make a donation to the campaign to help cover gas costs and other expenses at their Donate Page.

Sarah Palin Endorsement Only Relevant for About a Week

Sarah Palin has endorsed Richard Mourdock for Senate.  John McCain endorsed Lugar.

Neither of those endorsements are particularly surprising.  McCain endorsed his long-time friend.  Palin endorsed the Tea Party favorite.

Right now we're hearing a lot about the Palin endorsement.  So much so, in fact, that Mourdock, while thanking another group for their endorsement, went out of his way to again address the Palin endorsement.

Why?  Because Palin is incredibly popular among uber-conservatives.  And those are the people the Lugar and Mourdock are fighting for right now.  So as we get much closer to the May 8th Primary, I wouldn't be surprised if we continue to hear Mourdock tout the importance of the Palin endorsement.

One way or another, though, I bet that ends May 8th.  If Lugar wins, of course it ends along with Mourdock's campaign.  If Mourdock wins, though, as is looking more likely every day, I doubt he continues to brag much about the Palin endorsement.

Why?  Because the voters he's fighting for will change dramatically.  Today he's fighting for right-wingers and is proud to display his endorsement by someone right-wingers adore.

But starting May 9th, Mourdock will have the right-wingers' votes locked up.  If he wins the primary, the Republicans are going to vote for him in November.

So starting May 9th, Mourdock is fighting for the votes of independents and swing-voters.  And that crowd aligns themselves more with the Democrats when it comes to attitudes towards Sarah Palin.  Their feelings range from a great dislike toward her, to outright hating her.

So while you see Mourdock proudly wearing the Palin endorsement today, I wouldn't expect that trend to continue for more than another week.  Then it gets filed away as a campaign hindrance. 

Straub Gone!

Fox 59 and other sources are reporting that Indianapolis Public Safety Director Frank Straub will announce his resignation this afternoon.  The reports say the resignation will be effective August 1st.

Indy Star Report

Good riddance.

"Indy Bar Owners: You've Been Had" OR "How the Government Tricks You Into Supporting Something You Hate"

'When it comes to controversial legislative issues that have no chance of ever passing in their fully intended form, it's not uncommon for legislators to pit those that oppose them against each other.  This most commonly happens through what I call "the baby step game."

What is the baby step game?  Simple.  Our laws are currently at step A.  The legislators have determined that we should be at step D.  Unfortunately for our legislators, though, they know there is no way that their constituents would ever support a jump straight from A to D.  So, they break it down into pieces.  Instead of going from A to D, they go from A to B, then wait a little bit and go from B to C.  Finally, they make the step from C to D.

Each step seems a little less harsh, and thus is less likely to receive the level of criticism that would cause the legislators to reconsider it.  It's a trick that our government uses against us very, very regularly.

The worst part of this government trickery is that, by breaking it down into stages, our legislators are sometimes able to turn the very people that were originally all on the same side against each other.  By doing so, they turn what were originally their enemies into their supporters.  And our legislators are so successful at doing this that most times the sides that have been turned into unwilling supporters have no idea it's happening to them.

The most recent example of this is with the smoking bans.  The advocates of smoking bans wanted an all-encompassing ban from day one.  The legislators pushing for a ban, though, knew that there was absolutely no chance of moving from no ban on public smoking to a full ban on it.  So, they started by focusing on restaurants.

When they first went to ban smoking in restaurants, they knew it would be a battle. It was just restaurants, though, not bars.  Just the place that the kids could go.  It was a fight, but a fight "for the kids."  Slowly, they gained the support that they needed to pass the ban.  Restaurants, bars, cigar bars, private clubs and more all were against the ban.  It was spun as a compromise, though, and eventually they were able to get it passed.

After passing the restaurant smoking ban, it felt like it was all over for a while.  Restaurants complained that they were unfairly focused on and were losing smokers' business to bars and private clubs.

After a few years, the angst of restaurants started to take hold.  Suddenly, the fully acceptable compromise that only restaurants would be impacted became obsolete.  Now, the attack turned to bars as well.  No longer was protecting the kids the focus, though.  Now, the attention was turned to protecting the employees.  Now it was important to ban smoking in bars, too.

So, the legislators fought again.  This time, they fought to ban smoking in bars.  Eventually, they again reached a compromise.  This time that compromise meant that bars would now also be prevented from allowing smoking in their businesses.  That compromise, of course, eventually passed and was signed into law.

That compromise that was signed into law prevents Indianapolis bars from allowing smoking in their establishments.  Cigar bars, hookah bars, tobacco shops, and private organizations, though, are still continued to allow smoking.  For now.

The first steps towards the next expansion of the smoking ban are already in motion.  Since the passing of Indy's latest smoking ban, several bar owners in town are now calling for a comprehensive smoking ban.  They are, justifiably, worried about losing business to low cost private organizations that may be near their businesses.  Organizations that, in many cases, are just a glorified bar.  Organizations that now allow smoking while the traditional Mom & Pop bar can't.

While I see where the bar owners are coming from (they're just trying to protect their business), I worry about what this means for the future.  You see, the Indy bar owners are now just playing into the legislators' hands.  They WANT the bar owners to complain and, in lieu of being able to allow smoking themselves, will fight for no smoking for anybody.  It is the first step to the next step.

Trust me, Indy bar owners, the legislators are listening.  And at each step along the way, they will meet less resistance.  It may be very soon, considering Indy's recent history, before the next step is introduced.  Like each step along the way, it will be unlikely to meet with success at its first stop.  Within a couple or three tries, though, the ban of smoking in private establishments will definitely pass.

Following that will be the cigar bars and hookah bars.  Maybe even the tobacco shops.  Again, it will take two or three tries, but it will pass.

After that, we'll see a push against smoking in cars or our homes.  It probably seems silly now, and it will seem silly when it's first introduced.  Within a few tries, though, it will pass.  Our yards may follow.  And cigarettes as a whole, the original goal, will be banned within most of your lifetimes.

Indy bar owners:  I understand your angst and your anger right now.  I hope you'll understand, though, that you are playing right into their plan.  Your desire for the next step to take place will only make it one step closer to the next step after that.

You have been turned into a pawn for the anti-smoking crowd.  Exactly as they planned just from the beginning.

Rupert Makes Pledge to the LGBT Community on Marriage Equality

One of the more divisive issues in our communities today is the future of LGBT rights.  Marriage is at the forefront of this issue.  Whether you are for or against the rights of homosexuals to marry, the topic is hotly debated in just about every political arena.

Other issues the LGBT community are fighting for include inheritance rights and hospital visitation rights.  Without the ability to marry, if one partner in a homosexual relationship dies, then the surviving partner doesn't have the tax benefits on the inheritance that a similar heterosexual couple would have.  And if a LGBT partner is hospitalized, the other partner may not have visitation rights if the family disagrees...something that would obviously never be possible to happen against a spouse in a heterosexual marriage.

Over the last few years the fight for LGBT rights has become the civil rights issue of the generation.  There have been great advances in the fight.  A handful of states have started to allow gay marriage.  Hate crimes laws now include acts against homosexuals.  The public attitude has become welcoming enough that many that formerly would have stayed in the closet for their entire life are now comfortable coming out at an early age.

The obstacles yet to overcome far outweigh the advances, though.  While many now feel comfortable coming out that may not have, by doing so they face the potential to face dangerous bullying issues...especially while still of school age.  Entire segments of the population still fight against homosexuality; they fight over things like why people are gay and they fight over what rights the LGBT community may have.  They do everything they can do to "keep the gay away."

In politics, the fight is just as grand.  The Republicans, with little exception, fight with all their might to prevent LGBTs from having any kind of benefits at all.  For the most part, the gay community responds by rarely voting Republican.  And who can blame them?

Confusingly to me, though, the LGBTs turn their support to the Democrats.  While the Democrats don't go out of their way to fight against gay rights, they sure don't go out of their way to support them, either.  It feels like  the LGBTs just choose to vote for the lesser of two evils.

Examples?  Let's start with the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  Which Republican signed this bill that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, and also keeps states from having to recognize a gay marriage performed in another state (despite the constitutional requirement to do so)? No Republican at all.  The bill was signed by Democrat Bill Clinton in 1996.

And what Republican signed into law Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT)?  Again, none.  The bill was signed into law by...you guessed it...Democrat Bill Clinton in 1993.

But, wait!  Democrat President Barack Obama got rid of Don't Ask Don't Tell, didn't he?!?  Yes, he did.  But let's look at how he did it.  Throughout the 2008 Presidential campaign, he indicated that getting rid of DADT was a priority to him. But how much of a priority did he make it once he took office in January 2009?  The answer is he didn't make it a priority at all.  In fact, after he was elected we never heard him mention it again for about 18 months.

Why did he wait for 18 months to bring it back up?  He had the majority in the House and the Senate.  If it was REALLY a priority for Obama, all he had to do was tell his friends in Congress to get the bill on his desk, and it would have been law in very short order.

Instead, though, Obama used the LGBT community to his political advantage.  He only made an issue out of it when he felt he could pick up a few votes with it.  He campaigned on its importance in 2008 to get votes.  Then he ignored them for nearly two years.  Then it suddenly became important again in 2010 when he could again use it as leverage for votes.  In the meantime, LGBTs spent two years either choosing to not serve in our military, or serving and hiding who they are.  Obama made them suffer for all that time so he could pick up a few more votes for he and his party.

The same attitude is going on right now in Indiana and it's Gubernatorial race.  Ask a member of the gay community what they think of Mike Pence and they are likely to despise him.  After all, Pence openly fights against gay rights.

But then ask LGBTs who they're going to vote for this fall and they are likely to say John Gregg.  Why?  Not because he's on their side, but because he's the lesser of two evils.

As my friend an fellow blogger Mike Kole recently wrote on his blog The Kole Hard Facts of Life, John Gregg is no friend to the LGBT community.  When it comes to LGBT issues, Gregg is suspiciously silent.  If he does support LGBT rights, he sure isn't saying so. And he may very well be against those rights...we just don't know.

If Gregg does support LGBT rights, why would he keep quiet about it?  There's only three possible reaons: A) He's embarrassed by his position;  B) He feels his position could harm him politically; or  C) He doesn't really support LGBT rights.

If you are LGBT, which of those makes you comfortable voting for Gregg?  Do you want to vote for someone who's embarrassed to support you?  Do you want to vote for someone whose principals are so low he'd hide his support for you to gain political advantage?  Do you want to vote for someone who is against you?  I bet the answer is "No!" to all three.

There is an Indiana Gubernatorial candidate that isn't John Gregg or Mike Pence, though.  And guess what, LGBTs, he's made a public pledge to support marriage equality and LGBT rights.

That's right, Rupert Boneham is a friend to the LGBT community.  He's not embarrassed by it.  He stands by his principals and admits it.  He will fight for you.

As we head into the fall elections, I hope you will remember that.  Of course, there are many more issues than just LGBT rights.  Rupert will be making several trips around the state in the next several months.  He makes himself very accessible and is always happy to talk policy with Hoosiers.  If you will be attending Circle City IN Pride this year, Rupert plans to be there all day at the Libertarian Party booth.  Please stop by.

The Bisard Case and The Integrity of Our Police Force

It's hard to be a cop.  Harder than I can imagine.  I have a few friends that are cops.  I wouldn't want to trade places with them.

One of the hardest thing about being a cop has got to be the lack of respect shown to you by different segments of the population.  Mostly, I'm sure this comes from people that are up to no good and the presence of a police officer means they have to delay or abort their nefarious plans.

Sometimes, though, the lack of respect comes from those who are mostly good and would never consider doing harm to another.  Maybe that lack of respect comes out of anger; a person was speeding or rolled through a stop sign and got a ticket.  Angry over the ticket, even though that person broke the law, they have a show of disrespect to the police officer.  Hey, they're just doing their job.

But then there's another side.  There's the side of  "cops taking care of their own."  This is the side that would really piss me off if I was a cop.  The majority of police officers do their jobs and live by operating above and beyond the demands of the law. They understand that when all eyes are on them, they have to go above and beyond to earn and keep the respect of the citizens. A few, though, ruin it for the rest of the force.

One of the ways that cops operate above the law is speeding.  That's one that really gets on my nerves.  The speed limit on I465 around Indianapolis is 55mph.  I regularly set my cruise control at somewhere between 63 and 65.  Plenty of people pass me, including off-duty police in squad cars moving at 70mph or more.  I may not literally see it every day, but I see it several times a week.  Sometimes the officers are on duty, too.

Hell, on-duty officers never follow the speed limit.  They are always going at least 63 on I465.  What's my motivation to follow the speed limit if they can't?

I just lost some respect.  IMPD and the State Police regularly give people tickets for going 70 on I465.  But these officers aren't scared, because they are in a police car.  They're not getting pulled over for going 70, so they just cruise along with no worries.

People like me who appreciate the police and respect them for the job they do get saddened by stuff like this.  A big sigh and a "c'mon, guys!" I know that, even though I didn't mean to, I just lost a little respect for the badge.

As I stated, the officers should, especially when on-duty or off-duty but in a squad car, follow the law to a T.  Maybe even go beyond it's requirements.  I shouldn't see officers going above 55 except when their is a call for them to do so.  It's just the right thing to do.  (And, whether I would like it or not, I bet the average speed on 465 would come down a few mph if all the cops were going 55.)

Same deal, but exponentially bigger,  with the Bisard case debacle.  The first blood draw was taken at the wrong facility and thrown out.  The second blood draw was "accidentally" removed from refrigerated storage and is now compromised.  The FBI has been asked to come in and investigate whether there has been criminal intent in these situations.

If I was one of the majority of the officers out there that are good, I'd be pissed.  This is the kind of stuff that just made the entire IMPD, as well as police officers everywhere, lose respect from the masses.  The whole "a few rotten apples" cliche at its grandest.

I love my police officer friends.  I respect you and your job; it's one of the most difficult in the world.  I just hope that you and your fellow officers remember that "protecting your own" means much more than protecting an individual officer that has done wrong.  It means protecting your department and what your badge stands for.  It means having integrity above all else because all eyes are on you and the slightest misstep is amplified and ripples out to those all around you.

To protect your own doesn't mean to turn a blind eye to misdeeds.  It does not mean to do shady things to let one of your badged brothers get away with wrongdoing.  Protecting your own means holding yourself and your fellow officers to the highest of standards at all times.  You earn respect that way.  You keep respect that way.

Smoking Bans: Can We Please Stop Pretending It's About Health?

I don't write much about smoking bans.  I know, as a political blogger, you'd think it is some kind of prerequisite.  I choose not to talk about smoking bans, though.  It's not that I don't have strong feelings on the issue, because I do.  I choose not to spend time on it because: A) I think smoking bans are inevitable, and B) There's plenty of blogs out there talking about it and I'd just be noise.

So today, the day after the Indianapolis City-County Council has, for the second time this year, passed a enhanced smoking ban, I guess I'll touch on the issue a little.

I don't really want to talk about the ban itself, though.  I'm not going to focus on what's included, what's not included, who's applauding the vote, and who's upset with it.

Instead, I want to talk about why people want a smoking ban to begin with.  And let me tell you...it's not about health.  Not about the health of patrons.  Not about the health of employees.  It's not.

And I'm not going to get into whether or not second-hand smoke is dangerous.  Or third-hand smoke, which I've started to see little bits and pieces of mentioned in stories.

I'm not going to talk about any of those things because that's not why people want a smoking ban.  Some people are concerned about those things, but that's still not why they want a smoking ban.

People who support a smoking ban want a smoking ban for one simple reason: the smell.  They hate the smell of cigarettes.  They don't like going to bars and having to put up with the smell.  They don't like coming home and smelling the smell in their clothes.  They don't like feeling like they need a shower to get the smell off of them.

I get that.  There is a non-smoking bar near my house that I enjoy going to because I don't like coming home smelling of cigarettes. (Although I will sometimes smoke a cigarette or two while I am in a bar.)  But I don't pretend I go there because it's better for my health. I go to avoid the smell.

Why do I believe that it's the smell and not the health that is why people want a smoking ban?  A couple reasons.  First, that's what people bitch about.  The smell.  Not the impact on health, but the smell.  Second, there are plenty of other things that are plenty dangerous to people's health that you here very few ramblings about.

I'm not saying no one cares about the health aspects.  I'd bet, however, that if cigarettes were odor-free, then this argument would be a much quieter one.  I just wish that smoking ban advocates would be honest and say they don't like the smell.