Lake County GOP Breaking News

Update:

St. John Township Assessor Hank Adams on Wednesday resigned his post and entered the general election race for Lake County assessor against Democrat Carol Ann Seaton.

The move means Adams, a Republican who was unopposed in the St. Township assessor race, has passed up a sure return to office to run for countywide office in the most solidly Democratic county in the state. No Republican has held countywide office in Lake County since the 1950s.

"I'm sure people will think I'm crazy," said Adams, who has been assessor in St. John Township since 1994. "But people wrote me off when I first ran in St. John Township and I won that one in a landslide."

This is the race against a Democrat holding driver's licenses in two states. Think the GOP can win a seat in county government for the first time since the 50's? Whether you are a Republican or Democrat, a viable two party system is important to the health of Lake County. This may be the ticket for reinvigorating that two party system.

Breaking news. Hank adams files at last minute for LC assessor! Melody kikkert to be unopposed for st john twnshp assessor assuring the gop of a continued win

Budgets and Growth

Love him or hate him, Governor Mitch Daniels has moved the political debate at every level of Indiana government to budgets ... and the need to make them smaller.

In Indiana each local government unit is directed to develop and approve a budget. This budget must meet all the requirements of balancing, must be approved by the Department of Local Government Finance, and must take into account the property tax caps that are currently law and will become constitutional law in November.

From insurance to employee bonuses, new facilities and repaving, to investment in major projects and employee training ... every single line item is being meticulously scrutinized by Mayors, Commissioners, Councils and Trustees. This is a success for Indiana government and for Indiana taxpayers.

Many of you know that I work for a financial advisor to many of our local government entities. Although many of the cuts required by the tax caps have been tough, and in the case of Gary draconian, the cuts and savings have been found. This is a testimony not only to our Governor and his vision for the future, but to the local government officials all over Indiana who have done the heavy lifting and will continue to do so.

There are county level elections this year, and I'm sure budgets will be a very big part of those political races. Then next year the municipal elections, where officials will be tasked with seeking election without the ability to promise big spending or pork projects. So far, not too much controversy right?

Final thought, governments are poor job creators. Mitch Daniels said last week "school campuses should exist for educating our youth, not to create lifelong employment for adults employees of the schools". Sure a tweek at ISTA and school unions that often lose focus on the goal of school. But more importantly a reminder that real job creation is not a government strength. Government can get in the way with taxes or regulations. Government can slow the process of investment down, but seldom does government make things work faster.

The best goal for the budget minded politician going forward will be - Find every way possible to remove your government from getting in the way of the private sector recovery. Seek out regulations that prevent investment and risk taking, and eliminate them. Make sure your staff knows that their job is to assist, empower, and embolden new investment ... not the opposite which all too often reigns in big white buildings. Economic Development is huge, but Engineers who seek to destroy great ideas not so much.

To those who are anti-growth still in Northwest Indiana. Are you serious? You don't want investment, growth, new jobs, or opportunities? That may have been a winning formula for populist election in 2004 or 2005, but times have changed. Now the key will be economic development with a passion and vision for creativity and innovation. The key will be collaboration between public and private entities that allows investment and risk.

I once said "A developer can never win an election, no one likes a developer" after the political games in 2004 and 2005. Today we may well need leaders who have the heart of a developer, the passion and vision that requires, and the ability to balance risk and reward inside of a balanced and tightly restricted budget. This is surely no year or even decade for the CAVE people. (Citizens Against Virtually Everything) sorry.

Obama's roommate and November's vote

artist Ronny Gordon

I received this in an email and, yes, I do get a LOT of emails.  But this one rings true.  Trying to understand all the bad ingredients that went into baking the cake that is Barack Obama is tough.  The list is a long one.  However this Wayne Allyn Root sounds like he was there when they were stirring it all up in the mixing bowl:

OBAMA'S CLASSMATE tells it as he sees it..!

WAYNE ALLYN ROOT: Overwhelm the system Barack Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos -- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.  Barack Obama is my college classmate (Columbia University, class of '83). As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University. They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below.   Taken individually they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival ... and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it. -- Universal health care. The health care bill had very little to do with health care. It had everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and health care workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions). Obama doesn't care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression? -- Cap and trade. Like health care legislation having nothing to do with health care, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama's biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama "spread the wealth around." -- Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who's asking for a 51st state? Who's asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? Certainly not American taxpayers. But this has been Obama's plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government. -- Legalize 12 million illegal immigrants. Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free health care alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America. But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security. -- Stimulus and bailouts. Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions -- including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country. It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues). All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America. The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful. The ends justify the means. -- Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama). Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition. With the acts outlined above, Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system. Add it up and you've got the perfect Marxist scheme -- all devised by my Columbia University college classmate Barack Obama using the Cloward and Piven Plan. hat tip to Patricia DePorter and American Thinker ~ Naturally I am inspired to sing a song -  with apologies to Richard Harris and Jimmy Webb - sung gustily to the tune of MacArthur's Park

Marx was never waiting for us, girl

He ran one step ahead

As we followed in the dance

Between the parted nations now depressed

Like Cuba and Red China

Voters get no second chance

November’s vote is not all that she wrote

Though Obama’s taking us all down

Someone left of Lenin is in charge

I don’t think that we should take it

They’ll take USA and break it

And we’ll never get it back again so vote

Go vote!

I recall the Constitution’s words

Like the beacon in the hand

Of the Lady in New York

The Bill of Rights, the Declaration too

But Saul Alinsky is the only thing he reads

November’s vote is not all that she wrote

Though Obama’s taking us all down

Someone left of Lenin is in charge

I don’t think that we should take it

They’ll take USA and break it

And we’ll never get it back again so vote

Go vote!

There will be another chance for me

And I will take it

There will be another vote for me

I won’t mistake it

I will save the country while it still lives

And never let you catch me watching NBC

And after all the votes of my life

After all the votes of my life

This next one is the one.

I will take the ballot in my hands and I will use it

I will see the Democrat in power and he will lose it

I will have the country I desire

And let freedom flow like rivers through the sky

And after all the votes have been cast

After all the votes have been cast

Obama will be through

And wondering why

November’s vote is not all that she wrote

Though Obama’s taking us all down

Someone left of Lenin is in charge

I don’t think that we should take it

They’ll take USA and break it

And we’ll never get it back again so vote

Go vote!

Go vote

Go, go,

GO VOTE!!!!!!

Lake County ballot moves

County precinct chairs gathered to fill a couple slots on the GOP ballot for November, from the Times:

Lake County Republican activists chose two political newcomers last weekend to face off this fall against two state representatives.

Precinct committee members gathered Sunday at the St. John Township Community Center.

They named Peter N. Karagan, 46, of Munster, to run in the 12th House District, which includes portions of Whiting, East Chicago, Hammond, Highland, Munster and Dyer.

He would run against state Rep. Mara Candelaria Reardon, D-Munster, who is seeking election to a third term in the Indiana House.

Karagan said he has been a small-business owner for a number of years. He currently runs a commercial real estate brokerage in Munster.

The caucus named Craig W. Menninga, 54, of St. John, to run in the 13th House District, which includes most of Merrillville, Hobart and portions of St. John Township and Schererville.

Menninga manages outpatient imaging at Dyer's St. Margaret Mercy Healthcare Centers.

He will oppose state Rep. Chet Dobis, D-Merrillville, who has a 40-year career as a state legislator.

GOP County Chairwoman Kim Krull said both men were motivated by their distaste of "the climate of politics as usual." She said, "Republicans have a lot of ideas to offer, including transparency in government and fiscal responsibility."

She said Jack D. Chazvez plans to run for county treasurer in the fall.

Also see Blue County Red State for personal reflections from Buzz.

Good for Ed

Going to swipe a little bit of a post from another site.

I don’t get to worked up about gun stuff. I fully support gun rights, but there are enough other groups fighting the battle. Regardless I got a neat press release today from Charbonneau’s people. Ed represents Senate District 5, which includes Starke County and portions of Porter, LaPorte, Marshall, Jasper, Pulaski, and St. Joseph counties.

I was unaware that Ed had been part of a “friend of the court” brief supporting the second amendment. I get a lot of crap from pols but I was glad to get this. I’ll post the whole release below. Good for Ed Charbonneau

Read The Full Press release

Civil Liberty Victory

The Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd amendment does apply to State and Local Laws in a 5-4 split decision. To be honest, the only aspect that surprises me about this decision is that it came in the year 2010. However, this is a victory for Civil Liberties, although I do suspect that the ACLU wouldn't count this as one.

While listening to Dick Daley's news conference, I couldn't help but hear his "overwhelming" evidence that he claims supports his position. The one aspect which he and other gun control advocates always forget to consider, is that criminals never care what the law says and laws like Chicago only succeed in limiting the ability of the lawful citizen to defend them self, their family and their property.

The pen is mightier than the sword as demonstrated by this decision, but we must remember that it is by the sword that the pen retains its power and our liberties.

I would be eager to look at this situation 10 years from now and see just how this decision has effected crime statistics.

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any [criminals included] who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington

Yes, Chicago, there is a Second Amendment.

Thoughts?

Answering some NWIP questions

The Northwest Indiana Truther-er- Patriots sent out an e-mail to its members asking a few basic questions. As the only wonderful and all-knowing wizard on this site - I thought I would put my benevolence on display by answering these questions.

First, where would you like to see NWIP go in the next 6 months?

Away.

Second, what are you willing to do to take us there?

Anything.

Third, how much time would you be willing to commit to this process?

Lots.

Fourth, what principles can we agree to promote?

That 9/11, vaccines, oil spills, drinking water, TWA 800, cell phones, iZoom, license plates, mass transit, the I-69 expansion, and police cameras are not government conspiracies. Oh wait, they openly welcome and publicize those nuts in their group of misfit toys. Nevermind.

If they only had a brain.

Issues and debates worth watching

Doug Ross at the Times asks "would we be better off forcing every property on a registry so we know where the brownfields are?" I paraphrased that quote so I could use the word "force"

I answer no, emphatically no, a brownfield is merely a way to force values down and is not easily defined. The solution to our lakeshore and Lake County's dilapidated real estate values is private investment, with little or no governmental oversight. Sorry, that doesn't ring well when we've all gotten so used to big brother telling us what to do ... but it's the truth ... if you want revitalization and investment you want big brother to stay out.

Before someone goes batty and goes after the RDA, the RDA is exactly what government should do. Form a group that has as little political involvement as possible, give them investment dollars to use to fix real big problems and then get them out as soon as possible once those dollars are invested. Oh the rage that comment will create ... I know and love it!

What do we really want to happen at Gary Airport? Do you have a solution or idea, or just negative pseudo racial attack comments? I think I'd like to see the RDA take over the asset, rename it Northwest Indiana International. Work to integrate the Southshore station, taxi service, rail service, bus service, and more corporate air service. Lay out a long term plan to develop a substantial commercial and industrial project around the airport, one that uses all these transportation hubs. Take the airport entirely off property taxes, helping the City of Gary find some additional monies under the tax caps.

More later I am perusing stories all over the region ...

The Political Bazaar and the Political Cathedral

Last night I got an excellent education in politics from a local old master at how they play the game in Lake County, Indiana. Halfway through it, I had an epiphany, that the whole internal system, top to bottom was largely based on "Cathedral" style thinking straight out of Eric S Raymond's influential essay The Cathedral and the Bazaar and I had long ago decided that the bazaar had the winning argument, at least for this generation.

That moment cleared up a lot for me and clarified my thinking. I was having this discussion because the Indiana Republican Liberty Caucus had just organized a Lake county chapter and I was elected chairman. I was calling around and letting the town chairmen know that there was a new player in town on the GOP's side and oh, could I stop by to introduce myself and the LC-INRLC at their next meeting.

The old master went on and I paid attention but my entire perspective shifted because I had realized that the fight I was in was a different fight than the one he was describing. Imagine building a cathedral in a bazaar. It's a bit annoying to the rest of the bazaar but if you've got the scratch to reserve that much space, the bazaar will accommodate. Now imagine building a bazaar in a cathedral. The cathedral people will hate you because, inherently, your activities often won't respect the day to day pieties of the cathedral you're working in. Nobody has found a perfect solution to this, though the best of the cathedral builders in the software world have learned to make their peace and to change their structure to accommodate the bazaar builders that they rely on and compete with.

The ideological struggle with the left just got company as my top priority. Party building a GOP bazaar just snapped into focus as a major challenge.

also posted at Chicago Boyz

Can-Do-Conservatives Money Bomb: Let’s Blow It Up

Brian Donegan is the founder of the Can Do Conservatives, a great group to give a voice to the handicapped conservatives of the party.

I was supposed to do a radio interview with Brian today, but of course things don't always work when you want them to (I'm still not sure why it won't let me record audio right now, but regardless, it's something I'll be sure to fix in the future).

However, I still wanted to do my part to help support the Can Do Conservatives besides the contribution that I gave yesterday. It is a great group with an inspirational leader, and tomorrow they are having a money bomb to help propel Brian across the country to keep doing what he does best!

Please, visit the Can Do Conservatives and give as much as you think you can afford in this tough economic climate, then tell at least four of your friends to as well. If a mere 400 people donate 10 dollars, that's 4 grand! And if 4 THOUSAND PEOPLE donate 10 dollars, that's FORTY GRAND! (I'd continue to do the math from here, but I'd need to take off my shoes so I could use my toes).

Turn Up the Heat !

In the '08 election and being a Ron Paul supporter at that time, I felt the biased nature of Main Stream Media, MSM. Now looking back, Republicans and "Paul Supporters" have this in common:

Link to Video

MSM seems to create a bias condition for any conservative or conservative thought process. Here is the link to the survey's full results. As you can see and we can all agree, they are relentless. The question is, have we learned anything to combat this? Here is a link to what Palin has learned.

I believe we have learned. The Number One aspect is to stand your ground and let them hear you too.

Conservatives by nature like to be left alone and thus, don't get out and get active. Now, more than ever, is the time. There is only way to combat the MSM and their side show distraction acts, and that is to get out and get ACTIVE.

The key is to BE VISIBLE within your communities.

Go find that candidate and help them.

Go find your precinct committeemen and ask what can you do.

If your precinct doesn't have a committeemen? Step up and volunteer to be that person.

Go be the conservative soldier you need to be so that we all begin to realize, we are not alone.

Conservative is no longer a dirty word.

If that not inspiration enough, then how bout some advice from Reagan:


When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat.

As government expands, liberty contracts, he said

This below is an article taken from the Patriot Post and linked accordingly.  All of us in NW Indiana should carefully consider the philosophy as expressed here.  Right now we in Indiana and in the USA are engaged in a war of philosophies, a fight between freedom and Statism.  Statism uses catastrophes (such as the Gulf Oil Spill) as an excuse to pass more regulations, create new agencies and take more of your dollars in the process.  This coming election is crucial to this country, because if we do not vote the Statists out of office then we will get what we deserve.  

"As government expands, liberty contracts " -Ronald Reagan 

~~~~~~~

A Mind-Changing Page

By Thomas Sowell (Archive) · Friday, June 18, 2010


Sometimes you can read a book that will change your mind on some fundamental issue. Rarely, however, is there just one page that can undermine or destroy a widely-held belief. But there is such a page-- page 77 of the book "Out of Work" by Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway.

The widespread belief is that government intervention is the key to getting the country out of a serious economic downturn. The example often cited is President Franklin D. Roosevelt's intervention, after the stock market crash of 1929 was followed by the Great Depression of the 1930s, with its massive and long-lasting unemployment.

This is more than just a question about history. Right here and right now there is a widespread belief that the unregulated market is what got us into our present economic predicament, and that the government must "do something" to get the economy moving again. FDR's intervention in the 1930s has often been cited by those who think this way.

What is on that one page in "Out of Work" that could change people's minds? Just a simple table, giving unemployment rates for every month during the entire decade of the 1930s.

Those who think that the stock market crash in October 1929 is what caused the huge unemployment rates of the 1930s will have a hard time reconciling that belief with the data in that table.

Although the big stock market crash occurred in October 1929, unemployment never reached double digits in any of the next 12 months after that crash. Unemployment peaked at 9 percent, two months after the stock market crashed-- and then began drifting generally downward over the next six months, falling to 6.3 percent by June 1930.

This was what happened in the market, before the federal government decided to "do something."
What the government decided to do in June 1930-- against the advice of literally a thousand economists, who took out newspaper ads warning against it-- was impose higher tariffs, in order to save American jobs by reducing imported goods.

This was the first massive federal intervention to rescue the economy, under President Herbert Hoover, who took pride in being the first President of the United States to intervene to try to get the economy out of an economic downturn.

Within six months after this government intervention, unemployment shot up into double digits-- and stayed in double digits in every month throughout the entire remainder of the decade of the 1930s, as the Roosevelt administration expanded federal intervention far beyond what Hoover had started.

If more government regulation of business is the magic answer that so many seem to think it is, the whole history of the 1930s would have been different. An economic study in 2004 concluded that New Deal policies prolonged the Great Depression. But the same story can be found on one page in "Out of Work."
While the market produced a peak unemployment rate of 9 percent-- briefly-- after the stock market crash of 1929, unemployment shot up after massive federal interventions in the economy. It rose above 20 percent in 1932 and stayed above 20 percent for 23 consecutive months, beginning in the Hoover administration and continuing during the Roosevelt administration.

As Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up." It is all there on that one page.

Those who are convinced that the government has to "do something" when the economy has a problem almost never bother to find out what actually happens when the government intervenes.

The very fact that we still remember the stock market crash of 1929 is remarkable, since there was a similar stock market crash in 1987 that most people have long since forgotten.

What was the difference between these two stock market crashes? The 1929 stock market crash was followed by the most catastrophic depression in American history, with as many as one-fourth of all American workers being unemployed. The 1987 stock market crash was followed by two decades of economic growth with low unemployment.

But that was only one difference. The other big difference was that the Reagan administration did not intervene in the economy after the 1987 stock market crash-- despite many outcries in the media that the government should "do something."

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

~~~~~~~

The above post by Sowell, a brilliant man, should make us think about every single office we fill in November.  When you think about it, often a County official becomes a State official and then runs for Federal office.  You cannot ignore the philosophy of governance when you vote for a County Commissioner any more than when you vote for a US Senator!   Furthermore, it is the job of the voter to keep tabs on a man or woman voted into office to see if they experience "incumbency drift" towards the middle or even towards the other side of the political scale.   Would you believe Dick Durbin began his political career in Illiinois as a moderate?  As late as 1989 he was a Pro-Life advocate until, he says, he talked to a couple of pregnant teenagers who had been raped...but it is more likely that political contributions (NARAL and Planned Parenthood) did the trick.  

Both Durbin and Obama got jobs working with other politicians and connected to other politicians before they ran for office.  Durbin was a lawyer with Paul Simon and later ran for Lieutenant Governor of Illinois unsuccessfully before being elected to Congress.  Obama was a "Community Organizer"  at one point, served on couple of boards, was mysteriously rushed through Columbia and Harvard and, no, I will not go down the Barry Soetero road right now.  But he was elected to Illinois State office before running for a Federal office and his voting record should have frankly scared voters had they bothered to look it up.

Barack Obama began his political career running as a Socialist with the New Party.  The evidence is that he has, if anything, drifted farther left until he has become a Monarchist.  For you see, when you look under the liberal hood you find elitism is the engine.   We are watching Animal Farm in action.  Some animals are more equal than others.  Guess what?  Unless you are a Washington Insider and/or one of the money men associated with them, you are one of the "others."   George Orwell's novel was written as a satirical stab at Stalin and the Communists, who had replaced the Russian monarchy with an even more terrible form of tyranny through brainwashing, manipulations and murder.  Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all Socialists, by the way.

The common man likes to blame "THEM" for the problems of the world.  "THEY" are greedy or stupid or mean or incompetent.  Guess what?  YOU are the people who either vote or do not vote, YOU are the people who elect "THEM" to public office by either voting for them or by not bothering to go to the polls to vote against them.  If Barack Obama fiddles while the Gulf's environment "burns", so to speak, guess what?  You are the ones who voted him into the White House. Oh, and by the way, Nero was probably half-mad from lead poisoning and like many other leaders of Rome at the time, was killing himself and losing his mind from the content of lead in their favorite drinks and their indoor plumbing.  Barack Obama is deliberately ruining America.  That is probably more frightening.   He isn't crazy, he is intentional.  Even his inaction is an action.  Think on that for awhile...

Judging A Book by Its Cover

I didn't want to go there first, but Kevin Tracy brought up "the question," so now the ice is broken. I'm talking about physical appearance and its relation to presidential politics. Mr. Tracy brings up Governor Daniels' short stature, and how it may be a determining factor in many voters' minds. Remembering the "Dukakis in a tank" photo disaster, and the fact that actors like Tom Cruise and Sylvester Stallone make sure they're filmed so as not to show their height relative to their taller co-stars, I'm inclined to agree on this (though Sarkozy makes for an exception). But I feel that his height disadvantage pales to another physical feature: the man's nearly bald.

This country hasn't elected a bald (at the time of election) president since James Garfield in 1881. That was back in the days when not only did you not have television or Movietone news reels, but you also did not have photos in newspapers yet. You go campaigning in your top hat or bowler and never take it off until the race is won. Okay, the huge exception is Eisenhower. Who did he run against? The equally bald Stevenson. Twice. And being the American war hero of D-Day and the European campaign gave him a gravitas that no candidate had since Washington. You had to be universally known and admired to run on a "I Like Ike" slogan. If the Democrats would've gotten MacArthur like they wanted, he might've won. But I never saw a post war photo of him without his saucer hat, but he was a superior speaker (my father told me how they got Elizabeth Montgomery's father to give Ike speech lessons to get rid of his "ah ah um um" speech ticks). And MacArthur was quite a tall dude.

Think of bald candidates in your lifetime - I mean Henry Waxman bald. There were none, though there were thin haired ones. Now think of Clinton the hair helmet's two opponents, and how their hairlines at the time of their campaigns came close to Daniels' current state. And McCain with that last little wisp, well, there.

I've been noticeably bald since my early 20's, and fat since I was discharged from the army. The number of snide remarks about baldness outnumber those about weight about 10-1. You'll have someone swear up and down that hair doesn't matter, until you get on her in a bad mood with a couple of drinks in her, then listen. I recently had a boss who ripped on my co-worker over his baldness. The guy was in his early 30's, and the boss never missed a chance to rip into him about it. The last thing I remember before I left was him dressing down the guy, as they were both walking down the stairs, for being 20 years younger than him and being bald while he, the boss, still had a full head of hair.

Hat tip: Tracy's column.

Bus Rapid Transit

Today's Times featured bus rapid transit as a lower cost alternative to the RDA rail extensions. Unfortunately, they were more interested in long runs like Lowell to Chicago, where I was thinking why have South Shore rail spurs to Lowell and Valparaiso if you can use abandoned rail corridors to run buses from those cities to South Shore stations to the north? The bus would roll unencumbered with priority right of way like trains have, even with gates and signals as it comes.

So instead of one side fighting for an extremely expensive rail system and having our own version of Flagler's Folly if it is not successful, and the other saying no enhancements at all, here may be a way to spend a whole lot less money while achieving the same effect. People may not be much for city buses, but there's always been a lot of love for the good ole Tri-State coach to the airports. If the time with a bus/rail hybrid plan can approximate the travel time you'd get with rail extensions, let's see if people take to this.

I know there's a map somewhere showing abandoned rights of way. I wonder what exists to pull this off. Plus, with buses, you can vary routes as needed. It may not be as necessary at this end, but remember Metra controls the tracks after Kensington, where the South Shore rolls at Metra's will. If things ever got hinky with them, maybe then consider having our buses find a way from 111th to the Loop through Chicago former rail (or former commuter train) corridors.

Do you think this is a more viable thing, or is transit extension to Lowell and Valparaiso just a general no-go and not worth public monies? Each bus will remove 40+ cars from overcrowded as they are South Shore parking lots, plus get them out of the general traffic flow crowding the highways. And since the buses are dedicated, they most certainly can be synchronized with the train timetable, with allowances for train delays.

Bibliography: Times article, Flagler's Folly.

How 'bout that First Amendment? Another attempt to defy the Constitution and protect incumbents...

Bloggers and editorial writers around the country have lit up the Internet alerting you to over the past 48 hours. It is imperative that we continue hammering the Congress. Please call your congressman today and urge him or her to oppose HR 5175. Again,on the eve of another potential vote, it is crucial that the phones ring off the hook. If they’re not ringing, they won’t be worried.

----- Talking Points for contacting your Representative -----

1. I stand in opposing the DISCLOSE Act (HR 5175).

2. The Bill of Rights is clear in saying that Congress has no authority to pass legislation like this. Just like the Second Amendment says our gun rights “shall not be infringed,” the First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.”

3. The Supreme Court was right earlier this year in the Citizens United case. The Campaign Finance Reform law (otherwise known as the Incumbent Protection Act) was wrong. Americans, and the groups they choose to associate with, should be able to criticize Congress in the days and weeks leading up to an election WITHOUT BEING GAGGED OR FORCED TO JUMP THROUGH HOOPS that are mandated by Congress.

Tip of the hat to ARRA News Services!

Chicago Rules in Washington, DC

 Thanks to a rabble-rousing friend of good old rabble-rousing me:

The rules in Chicago………………………………….

Rod Blagojevich, is the former Illinois Governor who tried to sell Obama's seat in Congress. Obama was asked by the press if he had ever met Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Barack Obama:  "I only saw Rod Blagojevich one time ... and that was in the stands and from a distance at a Chicago Bears Football Game." Rod Blagojevich, Barack Obama, and Richard Daley during a rally in Chicago , April 16, 2007.   (Photo Reuters)  To understand where Obama's lying comes from,  you have to understand the world according to Chicago .  While Chicago is a city in Illinois, it is almost a completely different country when it comes to politics, with a whole different set of morals and language.  There are only three rules and a Prime Directive which anybody can understand.   You don't even need an attorney to understand them -- and if you need an attorney ... Well, you know too much .... so look out for Rule #3! RULE #1.   No matter what you see, hear, or do -- you don't know anybody and you don't know nothing!  RULE #2.   If you capture something on tape or camera -- it doesn't reveal anything! RULE #3.   If you know what everybody knows in Chicago -- well, you still don't know anything. The PRIME DIRECTIVE in CHICAGO ... No matter what the vote,  Democrats win the election.     Remember, you know nothing.  These two?  They don't know each other!  They said they didn't. The fellas in this picture, They never actually met face to face.   What fellas?  We don't see nothing!   The guy on the left?  For all you know he's Santa Claus.  And the guy on the right .... well, he's the Easter Bunny!   That's all you need to know. Make an appointment with your eye doctor ... your eyes are lying to you!  Ca'pisch? Remember Jimmy Hoffa?   He knew too much and now .... well, now no one knows where he is.  Is the big picture clear?  Not these pictures!  Remember, you've already forgotten them .....  Now, ain't that simple?   They don't know each other and they never met! How is that possible?  'CAUSE THEY SAID SO!  And don't forget it!

Mitch and His Statements

Gov. Daniels made a couple of statements that got blog attention lately. First is the Weekly Standard article where he suggests we call a truce on social issues to focus on economics. The second is his comment made at the Gary Chamber of Commerce where he says more state funding comes into Lake County than goes from it into the state account.

I'm sure there's an abstract of ins and outs somewhere, to which the Governor and Budget Committee are privy. But the general statement of money coming in and leaving means nothing in itself. Did he specify state only? With state and federal funds, I don't doubt it, with our heavy infrastructure demands. With state, I'll go with Lutas that we check our change before leaving the cashier. There's a lot of people living here, paying income, sales, and entertainment taxes. There's a lot of industry and commercial doing likewise, including the casinos.

The other statement is his opinion that the next president will have to call for a truce on social issues for a little while until economic issues are resolved. I don't have the beef that Buzzcut has with Daniels, and I also disagree with Kevin Tracy's assessment that Daniels thinks that Republicans will never win on social issues. First, he says for a little while, until economic disaster is avoided. Not forever, not that it's unwinnable, but if we don't stop budget suicide, who cares who wins the social issues debates if America falls. Remember, Palin energized the McCain campaign and kept it from a Mondale/McGovern pounding simply with her presence as the living embodiment of what social conservatives hold dearly, not with her budgets. And the harder the press and Hollywood liberals bash her, the more the right is endeared with her, and that also has nothing to do with her economics. But if two armies are battling on a plain and a tornado descends upon their positions, chances are they'll be taking cover from it, first and foremost, and worrying about the battle only after it lifts. A heck of a lot of social issue liberals will turn their heads and vote GOP because they're taking cover from the tornado, not because they're done battling us.

Bibliography: The Weekly Standard article. Buzzcut's article. Tracy's article.

A Conversation With J.C. Hallman

Some time ago, a buddy of mine posted this article up on his facebook. Since I'm always intrigued by interesting articles, whether I agree with them or not, I went ahead and gave it a gander. It was good piece by Mr. Hallman, and it brought up a lot of very good points. I left a short response on the comment section, and by the time I had gotten to the end of my comment, I decided to ask Mr. Hallman if he would be willing to have a bit of a back and forth on the topic of the article and about the topic of his new book, "In Utopia". He graciously obliged, and over the course of the past week and a half we have been having an email "debate" on the subject. The following is the results of that debate. Feel free to comment and give your 10 cents (or however much you may think it is worth), however if you are reading this anywhere other than my main site, please abstain from commenting anywhere but Matters of Opinion. This is to keep Mr. Hallman from having to scour the internet in search of the different comments regarding our exchange. Again, I would like to thank Mr. Hallman for taking the time out of his busy schedule to have a respectable debate, and I hope that any comments left respect that fact, and that he didn't have to, in any way, correspond to a person who holds very different view points than him and is very different ideologically. I hope you all enjoy!

My responses are in italics, while Mr. Hallmans are in bold.

Mr. Hallman, after reading your article about your recent argument with your father, I must say, I'm half with you and half not. I agree, Ayn Rand is definitely not the best writer that I have come across. "Atlas Shrugged" was an interesting book as far as the ideas contained, but the writing itself was dry and, as you pointed out, the ideas themselves were not new ideas. One can certainly tell that she is more of a pseudo-philosopher than fiction writer, and while that may work (to a degree) with her books "Capitalism: An Unknown Ideal" and "The Virtue of Selfishness", it made "Atlas Shrugged" a bit of a chore to read. I also agree with your assessments about Rand Paul, and (partly) about Glenn Beck. However, all three of those named (both Rand's and Beck) don't really identify with conservatives, even though you use the term conservative through out your essay. They all three identify themselves as libertarians. While there are many similarities, there are also many important differences, and a lot of conservatives don't identify with the libertarian side of the Republican party. For example, a great book to reference would be "The Conservative Mind", by Kirk. He compiled a collection of great conservative thinkers and their works, from Burke to Eliot, in this book, and does much to dispel the myths that libertarianism is the back-bone of conservatism. I suppose my first question regarding the article (and, I imagine, the substance of your new book "In Utopia", due out this August through St. Martins Press) is whether or not classical conservatism has been confused with libertarianism because of people like Beck and Paul, and if in fact it has, do you make those distinctions in your new book?

Yes, I suppose it's fair to say that at least in this "Ayn Rand Paul" piece, for lack of a better summary, I've allowed myself to get sucked into the current meme narrative: that the "right," in general, is being taken over by this particular wing of libertarianism. The truth is a whole lot more complicated than that -- and spatial metaphors begin to break down. Both the "left" and the "right" are broad umbrellas of possibility, and, truth be told, the very far right and the very far left might be surprised to discover that they have more in common with each other than either does with the center. Which means that you and I probably have more in common with each other than either of us does with the far right or left, respectively. That's an easy thing to forget, I think, as our society sinks further and further into a bifurcation that damages it. Suffice it to say, my book does not suffer from the same short-sightedness as my article! That is to say, I think the book contains portraits of both earnest conservatives and those I find extreme. The first is a portrait of capitalist utopian Knut Kloster Jr., one of the founders of the modern cruise ship industry -- his visions of cruise ships serving an important societal service by fostering cultural exchange among nations is one that not many on the far left could empathize with, but I had to at least admit, on meeting him, that he meant it earnestly. Not so with the founder of the gun utopia I interviewed -- a guy who hoped to build a master-planned community around a gun school in the same way neighborhoods surround golf courses. Him I found to simply be a "greed is good" conservative, which I can't accept as anything other than a rationale for, well, greed -- which isn't good.

To my mind, as I was writing IN UTOPIA, it all boiled down to whether one truly believed the world could be actually egalitarian. I have further thoughts on that, but I'll let you respond before I go into it...

I'll certainly agree that there is a large flux of libertarianism that has recently been brought front and center to the Republican party, and while I share some of the libertarian ideals (smaller, more effective government and fiscal responsibility, for example), I differ with them on many of their staples (foreign policy being perhaps the biggest, for me at least). I agree, as well, that many on the far right have a lot in common with the far left. That is, with me considering the furthest right to be an anarchic state with the far left being despotism, whether that be a form of Communism or Marxism or whatever form it would appear in, because one can not achieve despotism with out anarchy and disorder first. A despot can not overtake a nations government with out having the initial trust of the people, and is always voted into power. Another fine example, if one looks back at the contrasting history between Marx and Disraeli. Both were Jewish people in about the same time in history in Europe who disliked liberalism and what it entailed (particularly, in both cases, the lack of ideology and principles that plagued liberalism of that time), and worked to change "the game", as it were. Marx, as most know, started work on his "Communist Manifesto", while Disraeli joined up with the Tory party of England and worked to make it more conservative. Disraeli achieved some major reforms that are still present in England today, and...well...we know what happened with Marx's Communism. Regardless, those two reformers at the time may have been polar opposites, but they had a common liberal "enemy".

Regardless, however, my own thoughts on utopias stems from the fact that, while I may be a "conservative with a handful of libertarian tendencies" (which is how I usually classify myself politically), at heart I'm a realist. Realistically, utopias, at least on a grandiose scale, are unachievable because no two people have the exact same utopia in mind. Even if one were to have a utopia that would be perhaps "more right" or "more left", sort of a middle ground utopia to make more happy on one side or the other, ultimately government would have to break it up. This is my reasoning: Let's say, for example, there were a left leaning utopia established in America at the ballot, and the majority could craft the country however they see fit. If one of the biggest staples of government, pretty universally accepted, is that the job of the government is to protect the minority who doesn't have a voice, wouldn't that cause the ballot measure to be bunk because the governmental duties to protect the minority would have to be applied? I don't believe we could have anything like an egalitarian government, because realistically, capitalism is the only system that can establish free states, and with capitalism there are always going to be people who make more money (mainly because those people are the ones supplying the jobs for the others) and once true Egalitarianism is implemented, there is no reason for the job suppliers to supply the jobs at all. Not "greed is good", but rather "you can't get something for nothing", or perhaps "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is".

Now we begin to depart from each other! There are a few assertions here that I feel ought to be addressed -- I'll try to take them on methodically.

I disagree with how you characterize the point of convergence between the far right and the far left -- mainly in how you describe the end point of "Communism or Marxism." You imply that the "despotism" is the goal. While it may be true that those attempts there have been at state-wide communism have produced despots, I don't think it's fair to characterize that as the intended goal. (Who's to say what would have become of the Soviet Union had Trotsky prevailed?) That's not the intent at all -- and even my experience in IN UTOPIA speaks to that. In one chapter of the book, I tell the story of spending three weeks at the country's oldest active commune, Twin Oaks, a working communism. You can't really say they have a despot – no one is truly in charge. And yet they're thriving, defying the old rule that these kinds of utopia don't work. Indeed, it seems to me that if we're worried about too much centralized power in a single figure, we need to worry about the American right's efforts to consolidate power in the presidency. The implication here is that a quality of "leadership" will magically defy all the downsides of a despot. Yet it's this same consolidation of power that threatens to defy the basic power-sharing principles of government that are supposed to be our way of improving on Rome, or, say, Sparta -- both of which emphasized powerful leaders at times of war. (And Sparta, incidentally, for all the interest in it generated by the film 300, is one of the earliest models for communism.)

The second major point that I think needs to be addressed is the realist argument that you present -- that you can't have egalitarianism because people don't believe equally what the best possible system is. But I think even the United States is evidence that people can live according to a set of common principles, even if their every desire is not answered at every moment. We're a country founded on principles of freedom, opportunity, and power-sharing government. We disagree about what those things mean, and fight over them, but for the most part they are the shared, core values that prove that a society can be based on agreed-upon building blocks. If that wasn't the case, wouldn't we have seen a coup by now? Wouldn't the right or the left, on losing the presidency, have simply said no, we're not leaving? The United States already is striving toward egalitarianism in that it has moved consistently toward empowerment for all -- one person, one vote. As to realism, I think you have to have a pretty tin ear to not hear the utopian longing in the phrase "In order to form a more perfect union." My conclusion is this: utopia is not about naivete or being unrealistic, it's about recognizing that the best possible progress we can make is a function of striving after the perfect that the Constitution tasks us to pursue. Remember, when the Constitution itself was written (and the Founding Fathers were quite familiar with James Harrington's Oceana, a popular utopia at the time...and they lift ideas from it), it would have been characterized as "too good to be true."

Finally, I think you make a big leap in suggesting that only capitalism can create free states. Capitalism has certainly emerged as the winner of the -ism battles of the twentieth century, though it hasn't succeeded in supplanting the others entirely. The problem with capitalism is that a system based entirely on competition ensures that there are those who "lose," whose businesses fail, who are beaten by those who figure out how to make their businesses run better, or offer better prices, or whatever. The question for capitalism has always been this: what level of squalor can we accept for those who lose? Consider Detroit, consider deep Appalachia. Even Obama describes himself as a free market guy -- yet what do we do for those who lose? Retain faith in the pull-up-the-bootstraps mentality? Some of us can't stomach that, or don't believe that opportunity will provide for all who give it a good effort. Some succeed because they are lucky, and some fail because they are unlucky -- and those latter people should not suffer. It seems to me that the entire debate on the size of government boils down to this question. Even your note makes an uncomfortable assumption -- that somehow liberals WANT big government. That's not the case at all. I don't know anyone who wants a huge government. What people want is a government that is large enough to actually fulfill the promises our society makes to its people -- and there's nothing wrong with that. The real "utopian" belief, in the derisive sense of the word, is that any -ism will somehow magically provide for a significant portion of its populace that is living in conditions we cannot, morally and ethically, accept.

I figured at some point we'd find some areas of disagreement, ha ha, otherwise this would have been far too easy for either of us.

I suppose my points of dissent start with your ascertainment (as I've heard many people on the left say) that communism doesn't necessarily have to end in a despotism. History has shown us otherwise. Country's of any real size or power simply can not have a communist form of government, because there are far too many people to properly control and help. There's not a doubt in my mind that "communes" exist in the Eastern part of our globe (monks and what not's do, after all, have a communist type of society), however the biggest reason that those little communes exist (aside from their size, which is small enough to enable that type of livelihood as compared to the old U.S.S.R., which because the size of the country under communist rule had starving Russians and agitated people with no liberties) is the religious essence that comes along with those communes. For example, many of those monks practice Tao Te Ching and work towards a higher level of being and selflessness. That aspect of the communes actually coincides very well with conservative thought. Conservative thinkers place much emphasis on religion for a couple of reasons. One, they know that capitalism has the possibility to produce greedy individuals, and so religious teachings and a religious society helps to protect against those problems by teaching that greed is not Christian, to steal is sin, etc. etc. Two, because of mans nature, a higher power must be established so that there is a "wrong" versus a "right". Not everything in this world is a matter of relativity. To murder in cold blood is wrong. To rape is wrong. To molest a child is wrong. And our laws and over all societal thought reflect this and other freedoms, as opposed to the communist despots whom discourage dissent and don't allow free presses, "have no gay individuals" (which means they murder those that come out of the closet), and try and turn the head of state into a religious figure so that the government can become a sort of religion. China, Venezuela, Cuba, the old U.S.S.R...these countries all have that in common. Each communist country, in order to maintain order and control, discourages and even murders for dissenting thought.

As far as your analogy that America could, in itself, be considered a sort of "utopia", yeah, I suppose in a sense one could say that, depending on ones definition of "utopia". When I think of utopias, and in my writings thus far, utopias have been a much further reaching thing. After all, my home is my own little utopia. I do what I want inside of it, it is decorated to my own pleasure, and because of property rights my freedom as a land owning American allows me to create a tiny little "Travisopia". In that sense then yes, I can see where utopias are achievable, however much further from that, I'm sorry, realism sets in and I think of the Berlin wall being erected to keep people inside the "communist dream". Human nature will not allow that any utopia will stay exactly the same. Boredom will prevail, and people will eventually give up a society where all is provided because of the lack of excitement and the lack of possibility's. Stephen King has an excellent short story about a 20-something kid who is offered a job which entails: nothing. His job is to not have contact with any of his old friends. Anything he wants is provided to him, as long as he just writes it down a week ahead of time, and if he has any spare change, he is to dump it down the storm drain in front of the apartment. At first, one would think it was a pretty good deal. However, as the story goes on, the kid gets bored and leaves (which, then, since it's Stephen King a long horror story ensues, but regardless, it's an interesting example).

As far as capitalism creating freedoms, time and time again through history, capitalism has been the only thing to allow such liberties as we enjoy today. That's not to say that absolutely no reforms or rules are to be allowed (I believe I had referenced Ayn Rand's piece on child labor laws not being necessary, which of course they are, for example). Certain rules against things like insider trading and fraud are of course necessary. However for every bad thing we witness on television about the supposed "evils of capitalism", there are a million other businesses, both large and small, thriving and playing the game by the rules to supply cheaper goods for the poor/middle class and provide jobs with decent wages, all in the name of self interest and making a buck, while simultaneously benefiting every other member of society as well. Sure, there are reports of some people whom "go hungry" (in an age where a double cheeseburger at McDonald's only costs a dollar, I'm not sure why there are hungry people at all, but regardless) and there are those that are homeless. However, when you look at the statistics for the poor and the amenities that they have, it's staggering. Most have at least one television set. More than half have a vehicle. I just get tired of the whining, really. Look, don't get me wrong Mr. Hallman, I wasn't exactly born with a silver enema or anything. I had a good period where I lived out of my truck. There have been times where I've lived off of Ramen so that my wife can eat better than me. I know what it's like to have rough times. Hell, even decent times in my household doesn't mean we can eat steak and drink white wine every night! Are there those that fail, for their own fault of other peoples? Sure. And I, and many others in America, don't have a problem with welfare and food stamps to help those people out, with in reason. As a whole, however, capitalism does more good than bad, and it allows people to have a freedom to work for their money, buy whatever they want, and not be messed with by the government. And if they work extra hard? Well, maybe the boss may give them a raise and he/she can even take a little vacation to a commune spa as well. Let me ask this, Mr. Hallman: do you think your books and articles you have written (and are paid royalties for, I'm sure) would even see the light of day if you lived in Cuba?

Your last point is a good one -- and it's a point I think I make in my second book (about William James, ardent defender of religion) when I examine modern Atheism, categorizing it as a religion in and of itself, and pointing out -- as atheists know well -- that they can only profess open atheism in a society that stresses religious freedom.

But we have to be careful to apply history equally. William James is quick to point to all the good that religion brings to the world -- but that doesn't fully exonerate it, in his mind, from having generated the sentiments that resulted in the Crusades and the Inquisition.

Same goes for utopian thought -- conservative or liberal. And I'm a bit concerned that our exchange is a bit too quickly edging toward a Communism = Utopianism, Capitalism = Reality model. That's not the case at all -- and recall that our conversation was triggered by a piece I wrote about conservative utopias.

Utopia must be broadly defined, if only because it's quite easy to point to the utopian novels that stress the very ideology that you're suggesting actually distinguish it from utopian thought. Freeland, by Hertzka, is a great example. The Coming Race, by Bulwer-Lytton. Note that many of these utopians deny being utopias at all -- that's practically a defining characteristic of utopias! Marx and Engels too...they built off Owen and Fourier, but made the argument that they were moving from utopia to "science."

Utopia, as an adjective, simply describes the scope of a vision. It doesn't say anything at all about the nature of a particular vision.

The religious question is a bit different. You're right to point out that communal efforts that emphasize a common religion have tended to be more successful. But (probably because I'd just written a book about religion) I wanted to look at utopias -- architectural, conceptual, even communal -- that were not religious, but which seemed to be working on some level. (Even the cruise ship I mentioned earlier, a capitalist utopia, lacks religion.) And this would apply to the United States, as well. Again, it's something we've struggled with over the years, but the United States has survived and thrived without stressing a common religion (and it was the downside of a common state-sanctioned religion that set people running from Europe and the UK in the first place). Other modern societies -- countries in Scandinavia, Japan -- are fully functional states that are far more secular than the United States. So while religion can in fact serve as a bonding element for a society, it's not the only one that can work -- and it's one that, like utopian ideas, has the potential to create problems even as it solves them.

The reason that I think countries such as the before mentioned Japan can thrive with a more secular society is that they have a very solid traditional system. It's not just religion that can create a common bonding of principles for people in a society: after all, I had mentioned the Tao Te Ching, and that isn't a religion, more of a means of enlightenment. It's the societal sense of knowing what is right and what is wrong and is what sets people and governments apart from pure, unadulterated anarchism. Religion is what worked for this country, and many other countries across the globe to instill those values, and I think it's natural for people to crave a higher power, be it God, Allah, or simply "the force".

The only reason I use the communism model so much in the conversation is because communism is typically what is referenced when utopias are conversed about, although yes, I agree, there are "right" Utopian ideals as well, all though they are usually kind of the "anti-Utopian" concept, to more moderate conservatives like myself, because we think of "Utopian society's" in the form of an all powerful leader in the form of a human, and the idea of a man taking the place of God or another spiritual figure has the possibility of being despotism, but I don't want to start simply repeating past parts of the conversation and bore the life out of the readers.

I can definitely see where your piece about Ayn Rand, using a more broader use of the term Utopian than many in society typically use the term, is in and of itself a Utopian ideal of no government infractions on businesses. I suppose it is a bit more difficult for myself to characterize those ideals as, in there own way, Utopian, because my ideological belief system is closer to that line of thinking than, say, the communist model. Although I reject both ideas: an all powerful government, and no government at all, both leave a sour taste in my mouth make me shake my head and point out the flaws of both ways of thinking. And the paradox of it all, as we talked about earlier, is that anarchy is necessary to allow a "big government" model to be achieved. I suppose that's what makes America so different from anything else in the world, that we have the freedom to create, in our own homes and in our own ways, our own little utopias.

I typically try and stay away from strict ideological arguments, because so often they turn nasty, although I must say it's been a pleasure conversing with you, Mr. Hallman, and I look forward to reading your book "In Utopia". Is it going to be found, say, in Borders or a Barnes and Nobles, or will I and my readers need to order it from a separate online source?

Yes, I've enjoyed it too. Utopia is a great example, I think, of how the opposite sides of a debate can talk a lot "at" each other when they're not even agreeing about the basic terms of the debate. But we've made some progress here, and perhaps that's all anyone can hope for.

And, yes, the book should be available widely -- Border, B&N, Amazon, of course, as well as, probably, independent bookstores just about everywhere. Thanks much.

Karl Cender picked for Valpo school board

Karl Cender, from Cender and Company, was picked by the Valparaiso City Council to fill the open seat on the school board. Blog post from Cender's corporate blog.

There was quite a bit of political posturing before this appointment, with some suggesting on facebook and twitter that the city council was attempting to mess with the appointment system in some way. Those assertions are now shown to be foolhardy, since Mr. Cender is a Democrat having voted in multiple prior Democrat primaries, the only requirement in addition to residency.

With the board now filled and a new Superintendent, Valpo can begin some long term planning.

Are you ready to be serfs? Or are you willing to actually care about your freedom and way of life?

Thanks to the facebook page of my photographer friend Thomas Semesky:

.

Or are you going to get off your butts and fight for your country back?  

1) Register to vote.
2) Vote for the person running AGAINST the Democrat.
3) Rinse and repeat.

Government Transparency, The Easter Bunny and Santa

In another post this week there was an argument about Lake Counties taxes, how much they contribute to the state vs how much they receive. One commenter claimed that the county got back less than 1/3 of what left the county. I countered with Mitch Daniels comments at the Gary Chamber event.

"Daniels also deflected criticism that there’s downstate bias against Lake County and said more money goes into this county than what comes out of it."

That was enough for me, I trust Mitch and the comment rung true. I started thinking that there had to be some people that don't trust Mitch and that quote didn't prove anything for them. I spent about 3 hours online trying to find that information. I got nothing, maybe I didn't know where to look or what I was seeing. Regardless shouldn't that information be easy to find?

Politicians like to keep the water muddy, makes it much harder for voters to know who to be angry with. It's easier for Lake County to go get Money from the State than enact an income tax. Amazingly the tax gets voted down by the same group that claims they need the money. Mitch takes a little hit for suggesting the income tax but I think he'll be fine.

Shouldn't the next amendment force every agency that receives tax revenue to provide their yearly financials online?