http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Thu, 3 Nov 2005 23:35:25 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/11/03/233525.php Mike KoleToday's House vote of the Online Freedom of Speech Act was at once bewildering and a crushing blow to supporters of the First Amendment and free speech. First, let me say that I have never had any use for the so-called campaign finance 'reform' hogwash out there. I don't care if you are talking about Shays-Meehan or McCain-Feingold, it's all bunk that purports to try to take the effect of big money out of politics. In fact, both laws have the effect of empowering big money, as only the biggest campaigns and political parties can easily handle the management of the regulations and paperwork created by those bills and still have plenty of money left to get the message out. Many smaller campaigns often decide not to raise any money at all, so as to not be troubled by the paperwork nightmare. So, as you see, it is in fact the little guy's voice that get squashed, not big money's.Today, the House of Representatives considered a bill, HR 1606, that would have exempted political blogs such as mine from being treated as campaign contributions. In the near future, any blog- left, right, or center; Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian- will be treated not as mere political speech, but as a campaign contribution, if it links to a candidate, or gives favorable review to that candidate.The vote was bewildering because a majority of the House was in favor of passing the exemptions, but the bill was defeated, because infuriatingly, the majority was less than the required 2/3rds needed for passage. From a CBS News report:Online political expression should not be exempt from campaign finance law, the House decided Wednesday as lawmakers warned that the Internet has opened up a new loophole for uncontrolled spending on elections.The House voted 225-182 for a bill that would have excluded blogs, e-mails and other Internet communications from regulation by the Federal Election Commission. That was 47 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed under a procedure that limited debate time and allowed no amendments.The vote in effect clears the way for the FEC to move ahead with court-mandated rule-making to govern political speech and campaign spending on the Internet.Fortunately, some in the House still get free speech and the First Amendment. Sadly, not enough.The bill's sponsor, Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, said the federal government should encourage, rather than fetter, a phenomenon that was bringing more Americans into the political process."The newest battlefield in the fight to protect the First Amendment is the Internet," he said. "The Internet is the new town square, and campaign finance regulations are not appropriate there."Without his legislation, Hensarling said, "I fear that bloggers one day could be fined for improperly linking to a campaign Web site, or merely forwarding a candidate's press release to an e-mail list." I do hope and pray for a strong backlash from across the political spectrum in response. Unfortunately, the response to Shays-Meehan and McCain-Feingold was somewhat muted, as the forces on the left especially found that restricting campaign money was a good thing. Now, hopefully, they are seeing more and more how it affects the smallest political voices, and especially their own.But regardless of political leanings, any blogger is affected, no matter what candidate you may wish to speak freely about. Posting a link on your blog may be a crime. In America!Even a site such as Blogcritics, which affords space to the full spectrum of political belief and expression, would be subject to harassment, if its cabal of superior bloggers were to post favorable linkage to all of the candidates in a given race. Balance provides no cover.As it happens, I was concerned two years ago, when Blogcritics linkage was provided to Al Barger's campaign blog, for the McCain-Feingold ramifications implied in the act. Fortunately, at that time, blogs were only coming onto the radar screens of those who would restrict free speech under this ruse.So- If I link to my fellow Libertarian candidates, what is the value of that linkage? 10 bucks? 100? What then is the value of linkage from Instapundit, or Daily Kos?Then, as always, the question is: "what next"? Will CBS, ABC, & CNN be prevented from covering Hillary Clinton's or Condi Rice's bids for the presidency on the grounds that such coverage constitutes not mere news, but a campaign contribution? Are incumbents still able to score earned media coverage because as lawmakers, they are different than challenging campaigners?This is why libertarians and other free speech defenders railed against McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan as the ultimate incumbent protection plans. It is hoped that finally the linkage between paid political speech, and any speech, is seen on par. Free speech shouldn't only apply to impotent speech akin to the tree falling in the unpopulated forest.This and other insights run at the risk of breaking the law at Kole Hard Facts.RJ Politics39015@blogcritics.org Thu, 3 Nov 2005 23:35:25 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/29/131302.php Mike KoleI last presented an insight to the life of a campaigning politician to the readers of Blogcritics about a half-year ago. I am a Libertarian candidate for Indiana Secretary of State. The election is just over one year away, and I have been actively campaigning for one year. Interestingly, I may well have the most active campaign right now. I have visited 16 Indiana counties and logged over 3000 miles in travel on the trail. The incumbent is a Republican who has raised a lot of money, and appears to be more involved in that endeavor than in hitting the road. A Green Party candidate is making a bid, but what that entails for him is to gather sufficient signatures to earn temporary ballot access. No Democrat has even filed papers yet. Campaigning gets to be fairly monotonous in some ways. You say many of the same things over and over. You eat the same kinds of foods over and over. Fortunately, I never tire of meeting new people who are deeply interested in public policy.But recently, through some of the monotony, a new wrinkle has emerged. I am an active blogger and consider myself a well-rounded person. My primary blogging is political, but I also talk about other cultural items, such as sports, radio, music, and even gardening. I learned that as a candidate, there are many who will punish you for things not related to your campaign. Here's the story, briefly:I made some comments on the fledgling Air America, the liberal network featuring Al Franken and Jerry Springer. The tone was that it is not easy to create a successful product in short order, and when the main objective is to counter the AM talk success of conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Neal Boortz. Success in other areas of entertainment is not an automatic translation to success at AM talk.A fellow Indiana blogger took issue with my commentary, which is fine. I expect some to disagree with any perspective I may issue. That's life in the real world. What eventually emerged from the blogger was a condemnation of my campaign based on the entry and two follow-up comments I made.Think about that. There are people who will dismiss the candidate, not on the basis of the policies they promote, but on innocuous musings unrelated to policy or to the office being sought. What does my view on the relative success of Air America have to do with my positions on fair elections, after all? Nada.I was not bewildered by this turn of events. I expected it sooner, in fact. However, I am a candidate in an important race for my party. Libertarian ballot access is tied to this race. I must earn a minimum of 2% statewide in order to maintain continued ballot access through 2010. As such, there are those close to me who advise that I should shut the blog down, and only issue statements that are on-message.It makes sense. Why turn away potential voters and supporters over something that doesn't matter?On the other hand, do we only want candidates who have the insect-like ability to specialize strictly to three talking points? Do we want empty suits who are devoid of depth, capable only of the grip-and-grin with farmers, auto workers, and retirees?For my part, I have decided that I will not shut the blog down. In fact, I will not downgrade it to become a mere campaign trail diary with pics representing important demographic groups and bland musings on the beauty of the local landscape. I believe there is a desire for well-rounded, human candidates.For your part, I will ask you to consider the grounds by which you will dismiss any candidate out of hand, or worse, publish negative commentary about their candidacies. Sure, if it turns out that the candidate is a child molester or some other monster, have at 'em. If you have a genuine policy difference, have at it by all means. No decent candidate should ever have a problem with people of good will who take an opposing side. I know I appreciate it in a good dialogue. It makes me sharper for having to consider the opposing view more carefully.We've so narrowly defined our tolerance parameters that we tend to drive away good people who might otherwise take part in the process, leaving us only with candidates capable of ignoring the public. Not exactly a recipe for future responsiveness or representative government. When we are left only with candidates who really don't mind being described as 'evil' or 'stupid', what is that you think you have before you?If you find yourself underwhelmed with the choices before you, consider the way candidates are treated, and how tolerant you are of innocuous things as relates to them. How the public reacts to candidates has everything in the world to do with who they are and how they present themselves.This original entry is distilled from several items at my blog, Kole Hard Facts. I will not use this forum to direct you to my campaign website.Ed:LisaM Politics38737@blogcritics.org Sat, 29 Oct 2005 13:13:02 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/04/17/210609.php Mike KoleThis is an odd time to campaign for office in Indiana. The next ballot is over 19 months away, and after a Presidential-Gubernatorial ballot this past November, many voters welcome the unusual situation this state has, omitting a ballot once every four years. However, the Legislature is in session, and that ballot-free year makes for a year with minimal accountability in the Statehouse, so it's actually a great time to be on the trail, if it is your aim to reduce the size of government, and cut the spending and the taxes.I am a Libertarian candidate for Secretary of State in Indiana. No Democrat has even filed papers yet. I expect that the Republican incumbent, Todd Rokita, intends to run for re-election.Wed 4/13. Marion County, Indianapolis District 7. The City-County Councillor for this district, Democrat Greg Bowes, is an author of proposed smoking ban legislation. It would be the most restrictive in the nation, outlawing smoking tobacco in any public place, including outdoor arenas such as the Indianapolis Motor Speedway and public parks. It would ban smoking in private establishments such as bars and restaurants, and even private clubs. The Libertarian Party of Marion Co. set up a pub crawl within the District, to show bar owners, employees, and patrons which party supports the right of business owners to set their own policies- and which parties do not. Indy Star column.40-50 Libertarians made seven stops to bars throughout the district, talking about the proposed ban with all present. Most patrons were unaware of the ban, and most were aghast. A frequent question: Can I go to bars in the other county and smoke? This is, of course, what the bar owners and employees are afraid of. As the night went on, we found that bar owners from around the city joined our pub crawl, and made plans to give testimony the following evening before the Committee considering this bill.Councillor Bowes did appear at one of the bars and engaged in debate with County Chair Sam Goldstein and myself. I asked Bowes if he wouldn't like to ban smoking in people's homes. He said that he would. He confessed that when writing the legislation, it never occurred to him that the effect might be to hurt business. The bars owners rolled their eyes.Fri. 4/15. Main Post Office, Downtown Fort Wayne. Fifteen members of the Libertarian Party of Allen County set up shop on the sidewalk where late tax filers would drive up and hand off their returns to postal workers who had several large canvas bins. It was a beautiful spring day, and people in their cars had their windows open. As the traffic piled up, we took the opportunity to hand out literature to those who wanted it and to have quick discussions on taxes.Of course, that was sometimes difficult, since the most common sign the Libertarians carried read, "Honk If Your Taxes Are Too High." The din of horns was at times overwhelming. I remarked to County Chair Mike Sylvester that if all the people who hit their horns and flashed us the 'thumbs up' actually voted for us, we would win a lot of elections. Mike arranged a TV interview for me. I have no idea if it ran. The cameras were on us for the evening news, using us and the late filers as a backdrop for weather and fade-out images. Sat 4/16, 1:00pm. County Convention of the Libertarian Party of Marion County. The main business for the conventioneers was the election of their officers. As this is the largest county affiliate in the state, and I am still working to secure the nomination of my party, I was very eager to meet and greet and to speak before them.The pub crawl reaped a benefit. A lobbyist from a national association of coin operated gaming devices was in attendance. She and her members had testified before the City-County Commission on the smoking ban, and also before the State legislature on the proposed new 1% tax on food & beverages sold in restaurants and bars. They have learned who is on their side, and who isn't. She remarked to the convention that restaurant owners feel like they have been singled out for attack, and they have no idea what they've done to deserve this wrath. We discussed the absurdity of these taxes, plus new taxes on rental cars and hotel rooms- all while trying to grow convention business in Indianapolis. She understands that the firefighters will not return to Indy once the smoking ban is in place, after years of staging their annual convention there.Sat 4/16 6:00pm. County Convention of the Libertarian Party of LaPorte County. Out of downtown Indy at up I-65 to LaPorte, 180 miles away. I was making good time, so I got off I-65 and took US 421 instead to enjoy this rural stretch that runs parallel to the old Monon Railroad. Lots of grain elevators and big, blue skies.Once in LaPorte, I was very aware that I was in the hometown of Jeff Ake, the Indiana businessman who was recently kidnapped in Iraq. Every store that had a sign with movable lettering had messages asking for prayers for Mr. Ake and his family. It was overwhelming and very moving to see all the signs. No kidding- every video rental place, every Arby's, every convenience store or gas station had a message. Mr. Ake is very obviously beloved in his hometown. Indeed, the Convention began with a prolonged moment of silence for him. Story from local LaPorte paper.I was the keynote speaker at this Convention, and it was my first experience with a rush of photographers in front of the podium. It gave me energy and an inward chuckle. I knew my speech well. It was the second time in the day to deliver it, and with a three-hour drive for rehearsal, I was not thrown off. The main thrust of the speech was the importance for taking action that might be uncomfortable. It's a comfortable thing to criticize policy from the safety of your PC, but if it's uncomfortable to show up at a council meeting to assert your position, it is 100% more effective. It's a comfortable thing to be a paper candidate running for Township Trustee, but if it's uncomfortable to run a real campaign for County Commissioner, it's eminently more valuable. Etc.The speech was well-received, as I could see the group energized by it. People began talking about what offices they would be running for. The local media was on hand for Q & A afterwards.The LaPorte Herald-Argus used the front page to report on the event, focusing on my speech. The photo used includes the strangest expression I have ever seen me wear in a photograph while not playing hockey.This was my first truly busy five-day stretch, and it gave me insight into what it must be like to run a full-blown campaign for governor or US Senate. Saturday's activities required a certain amount of energy and discipline. I started my prep for the day at 11 a.m., and got home at 1:30 a.m. I had to be 'on' for two hours, had travel to manage in a timely fashion, was 'on' for three hours, and then was 'off' for a three-hour late night drive, when the energy is gone. When you are dressed as a candidate dresses, and you pull up at the local, rural gas station to fill the tank and add a quart of oil, everybody stops and looks, and the bold ask a question or two. Back 'on' again.That's nothing. The full-blown campaign down the stretch means every day is at least like that, and probably more. This and other items appear on my blog: www.kolehardfacts.blogspot.com. My campaign website is out there, but I won't use this forum to direct you there. If you want to find, you will, Google willing. Politics28270@blogcritics.org Sun, 17 Apr 2005 21:06:09 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/02/24/071204.php Mike KoleA news item in today's local paper took me by surprise. When talk about military quagmire occurs, the topic is Iraq. I had no idea we still had troops in Kosovo. From the Indianapolis Star:Barbara Walls spent hours at the international arrivals terminal of Indianapolis International Airport on Wednesday, waiting for her Indiana National Guard husband to come home."We're just out here hoping to get a quick hug," the Indianapolis resident said as she waited outside the terminal for Staff Sgt. Michael Walls. He was one of nearly 250 soldiers returning from Kosovo on a cold Wednesday night after nine months of peacekeeping duty -- the first of nine groups of Guard members returning to Indiana through mid-March.When the first soldiers started coming out of the terminal around 9 p.m., Walls watched each one closely. Finally, as the last soldiers left, there was her husband -- toting a box of records toward the buses.For the next two weeks, there will be several more arrivals as Indiana Guard members return from Europe. Most Guard members have returned from duty in Bosnia-Herzegovina; about 200 are left to come home. An additional 1,600 have yet to return from Kosovo, a province of Serbia, said Col. Brian Copes, chief of staff of the 38th Infantry Division, noting: "Kosovo is a dangerous environment, more dangerous than Bosnia."The simple fact is, there are American soldiers positioned all over the globe, the result of every US President's foreign policy since FDR. While left and right haggle over degree, the reality is that each since World War 2 has accepted as writ that the correct American role is military interventionism.Check out this and other provocation in my blog: Kole Hard Facts of Life Politics25933@blogcritics.org Thu, 24 Feb 2005 07:12:04 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/02/20/164317.php Mike KoleA miracle would be required to bring the NHL to North American arenas this year, and that's a shame. Killing a major sport's season over a labor dispute is unprecedented in North American sports, and the punishment will likely be severe. The irony in all of this is that today is the 25th anniversary of the US hockey team's 'Miracle on Ice' victory over the Soviet Red Army team.The US Olympic team was a group of inexperienced scrappy amateurs who took down a vaunted Red Army professional juggernaut who had played together for years.This NHL season was taken down by highly paid professionals and wealthy team owners who couldn't figure out how to split up the golden eggs without killing the golden goose. They had years to fix this problem, but both sides refused to flinch in this most pointless game of chicken.Pro hockey is easily the least popular of the major four sports. Football, baseball, and basketball all enjoy great popularity in the arenas and on TV. Kids play these sports and try to emulate the stars of the game. Hockey is a tough sell. It doesn't translate well to TV, thanks to the size of the puck and the speed of the game. American kids don't play hockey like they do basketball because hockey equipment is terribly expensive, learning to skate is a chore, and playing one-on-one just isn't much fun.Fans literally swore off baseball in 1994, when the season was ended prematurely due to labor strife. Many things have happened to help bring the fans back:1. Cal Ripken broke Lou Gerhig's consecutive games played streak. 2. Sammy Sosa & Mark McGuire chased Roger Maris' home run record, and were so darned pleasant to one another in the process. 3. The Red Sox and Cubs came tantalizingly close to facing each other in a World Series. 4. The Arizona Diamondbacks and Florida Marlins defeated the Yankees in a World Series. Anybody defeating the Yankees in a World Series delights huge numbers of fans. 5. The Red Sox won a World Series after coming back from a 3-0 championship series deficit with the Yankees.What on earth could the NHL offer to repair the damage?1. Gordie Howe returns to the ice in a part of a seventh decade. (His NHL-WHA career spanned from 1946-1980, with a couple of stunt appearances in the minors in recent years). 2. Tampa forward Martin St. Louis breaks Wayne Gretzky's single-season goal record of 92. He was competing with Jody Shelley of the Columbus Blue Jackets for one game, but Shelley is unpleasant by trade. 3. The San Jose Sharks and the Carolina Hurricanes came tantalizingly close to facing each other in the Stanley Cup Finals. 4. The Mighty Ducks of Anaheim and the Phoenix Coyotes each defeated the Montreal Canadiens to win the Stanley Cup. Anybody defeating the Canadiens in the Finals delights huge numbers of fans. 5. The Boston Bruins win the Stanley Cup after coming back from a 3-0 Eastern Conference Finals deficit with New York Rangers.Somehow, it just isn't the same.ESPN ran a poll on their website to see if readers cared if the NHL season was lost. More than 100,000 votes came in, and more than 68% came back saying 'no'. The tickets are too expensive. The players are perceived as spoiled brats for their role, and additionally stupid enough to walk away from pay cuts that would still leave them as millionaires while going to Europe to play for chump change in obscurity. The owners are perceived as rich by virtue of being owners, and nobody sympathizes with the wealthy.Fortunately, in their mercy, EPSN is airing a 25th anniversary special tonight on the US Olympic Team's Miracle On Ice. It airs at 8:30pm Eastern. It will be a cool, refreshing drink in a very nasty desert.This item did not previously appear in my blog, Kole Hard Facts of Life, but probably should have. Culture25751@blogcritics.org Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:43:17 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/02/07/184414.php Mike KoleI've watched many Super Bowl broadcasts over the years, and I have to say that this one was easily the least interesting. The NFL has regained the rights to use the moniker No Fun League.It was the lamest close championship game I've ever seen, in any sport. New England is positively masterful in allowing a game to look close on the scoreboard without the oppostion, or any viewer, ever believing that a comeback is possible. There was no tension whatsoever, at any point during the game. Even when the Eagles had the lead, it felt like they were trailing. Sure, 90% of the City of Philadelphia is crabbing today about clock management, and there was an onside kick late in the game, but even that was lame and without suspense, as the Pats recovered easily.The commercials were the least entertaining in the time I've been aware of Super Bowl advertizing as a phenomenon. Only once did I laugh out loud- at the Ameriquest spot with the guy holding the cat in one hand, the knife in the other, and the red sauce on the cat and the floor. Not once did I go, "Ooh! Wow! Cool!" in response to animation, concept, or even hot young women.In the desire to avoid repetition of the Janet Jackson-Justin Timberlake incident from last year, the Super Bowl chose Paul McCartney to perform. Amazing. In the '60s, the Beatles were the fore of the counter culture, unpredictable and daring. Today, McCartney is safe as milk, predictable and boring.The Fox broadcast team of Buck, Collinsworth, and Aikman make a graduate course in statistics seem exciting. The commentary might have been more stimulating had Richard Wright delivered it. Alas, only adding Pat Summerall could have made the team more dull.Fox Sports called the game officiating the worst ever. Funny, I missed that in all the dullness.That's four hours of my life I'll never get back. At least I got the laundry done.You can't even hate the Patriots' dynasty, due to the austere, team-oriented nature of all involved. These aren't the evil Yankees or even the juvenile Red Sox. You almost want Tom Brady to brag that he's never lost a playoff game. It ain't braggin', after all- he's done it.Way to go, NFL.While surfing to get past the tedium, I found the most innovative use of lost time by a TV network: Discover Channel featured Animal Planet, and aired something during the game called the Puppy Bowl. It was merely a playpen for about 8 puppies, with six different cameras. The puppies played, and a different camera angle was shown about every 10 seconds or so. It was cute and cheap to produce, and probably was a good return on the mininscule investment for the network.This item appeared in shoddier form on my blog, Kole Hard Facts of Life Culture25239@blogcritics.org Mon, 7 Feb 2005 18:44:14 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/01/30/122815.php Mike KoleI always have to remember to take a deep breath when examining the laws being proposed by our grand Legislature. I detest most of the new legislation on the table, but have to forgive our representatives in the House and Senate for it. After all, writing laws is what a Legislature does, and if they don't write enough laws, it can begin to look like they've been loafing.Call me strange, but I rather prefer a Legislature that goofs off and under produces new laws. I'm convinced we have enough of them already, and agree with Mark Twain, who famously said that no man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the Legislature is in session. Quote citation.Mainly, that is because no lawmaker wants to look like a slacker, especially so soon after an election. It's bad form. As a result, we get some hideous proposals that I would chalk up as an effort to hide behind some broad good intention while looking meaningful, or at least busy.House Bill 1508 is a textbook case as one such proposal.Representative Vanessa Summers, an Indianapolis Democrat, has introduced legislation that would prohibit the use of cell phones, making exceptions for hands-free devices and for emergency use. The proposed fine for violations of the law would be up to $25.The intent is to make our streets a little less hazardous. We have all groused at the idiot guilty of driving while in conversation that cut us off or made us miss a light, and we have cursed the driver and his cell phone. Summers' proposal takes its cue from similar laws passed in New York and the District of Columbia. As everyone knows, these cities now have the safest streets in the world.This law is rife with problems, from practical application to the higher concerns of individual liberty.I know four friends, right off the top of my head, who would gladly pay up to $25, as a cost of doing business. They think this highly of each and every one of their calls. $25 is no kind of deterrent for these people.What is emergency use? I define emergency use of a cell phone as a frantic call to a friend because I suddenly had two tickets offered to me for a Colts' playoff game, and I have to accept within five minutes, or the tickets will be passed on to a co-worker. My wife defines it as having found a deal on furniture, and she's on her way home so I can look at fabric swatches. I'm betting that this is not what the Representative had in mind. Some revisions will be in order.But why just cell phones? If the real intent of the law is to eliminate distractions from our roadways, why not ban them all? Summers could justifiably expand the proposal to include a ban on smoking in the car, adjusting the radio or inserting a Britney Spears CD, eating fast food, scolding the rug rats in the backseat, talking with your spouse, shaving or applying makeup, doing the crossword puzzle, using a laptop computer, using on-screen directions to Starbucks, and rehearsing your excuse that explains your tardiness to the boss.Could we really ban Britney Spears CDs? I digress.Before the law is done with revisions, no common person will be able to read and understand it, and mainly, drivers will just continue to take their chances.This begs the significant philosophical question: Why bother?Isn't it sufficient that citations can already be issued if the use of a cell phone is the cause of an accident? Why pile on? No harm, no foul: If the use of a cell phone isn't endangering anyone in the moment, why penalize for the harm that was not caused?Ah, the law is to be a deterrent, to eliminate the possibility of harm. But won't it also become more than that? How much of a stretch is it to envision police pulling over drivers who endanger nobody on a deserted road at 11pm, but who are guilty of making a cell call, just so the officer can meet his monthly quota? Isn't that a harm all its own?Say, if the police pull a driver over to the side of the road, isn't that the sort of distraction that could cause an accident? It should be banned!Let's hope this Bill dies in committee. If it passes, Summers will run for re-election in 2006 on the basis of having produced this wonderful law... and of having been suitably busy.Originally posted to my blog, Kole Hard Facts of Life. Go there. Go there often. Politics24890@blogcritics.org Sun, 30 Jan 2005 12:28:15 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/01/09/093156.php Mike KoleThe great thing about the TV is that when something on the screen offends, annoys, or just plain sucks, you can either change the channel or turn the blasted thing off.If you are especially put off by the program, you can write the network and express your displeasure.Unfortunately, you can also sue the network and the producer of the show. This is what one Austin Aitkin of Cleveland is doing in response to an episode of Fear Factor. Apparently, the contestants on the show were expected to consume a drink of rat juice from the blender. Per the AP:Aitken, 49, said he wants to send a message to NBC and other networks with the lawsuit. He said he isn't concerned with winning a cash judgment in court."I just put any figure. You really think I expect to get 2.5 million?" he said.Actually, my bet is not so much with expecting to get that money, but with hoping to get it.I'd like to send a message to those who would place frivolous lawsuits on the docket: knock it off. The kind of reform that is needed would cause for litigants to pay a large docket fee, say $10,000 in cash, that would be returned to them with interest by the defendant in the event the plaintiff won the case. This large docket fee would require the would-be litigant to think twice before filing, considering whether or not the case had real merit.Aitken's handwritten lawsuit contends the rat-eating made his blood pressure rise, making him dizzy and lightheaded."I didn't see the doorway on route to my room," his lawsuit reads. "I ran into it causing suffering, injury and great pain."This is why I say the suit is unfortunate. There are too many cases where people experience real pain that is caused by others. These victims should be able to sue those who brought them real pain. Got bummed out watching a show that works hard to gross out viewers? Didn't see the doorway? This makes one a moron, not a victim.Asked why he didn't shut off his television before the rat-eating segment, Aitken said he couldn't do it quick enough.NBC responded with a brief statement: "We believe that the claim is completely without merit."Amen, NBC. Let's hope that the judge who gets this case also sees it that way and dismisses it summarily. Another way to reform the system is for judges to find those who bring frivolous lawsuits in contempt and to fine them. Either way works for me.This item was also posted to my blog, Kole Hard Facts of Life. Politics24055@blogcritics.org Sun, 9 Jan 2005 09:31:56 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/12/21/232800.php Mike KoleThe accounting scandals surrounding Enron, Adelphia, WorldCom, Global Crossing, and a host of other giant corporations has served to generate great suspicion in American corporations. The dishonest practices that at once gave huge boneses to executives and then left shareholders with devastating losses has generated nearly endless blind indignation for corporations as a whole. In many quarters, it isn't merely an anti-corporate sentiment that has emerged. It is broadly anti-capitalist. Frequently, I have seen the call for greater government oversight and involvement in business.Most capitalists have failed to help reverse the sentiment, backing CEOs as though they are infallible heroes. Unfortunately, I have been among the few ardent capitalists to cheer when crooked CEOs were sent to the big house. Prison is where criminals belong, and I make no distinction between white collar crime and any other crime. I hate see capitalism take body blows for fraud. Fraud is not capitalism. It's deception and theft. Capitalism is honest trade. And corporations aren't inherently evil. Crooked people have been using the corporate structure for ill gains. Punish the guilty- the crooked people.But, as long as there is a huge anti-corporate, anti-CEO, anti-white collar crime sentiment out there, I would like to see the anger directed to the most recent batch of crooked executives, CEO Franklin Raines, and CFO Timothy Howard.They happen to be top executives of the darling government-supervised corporation Fannie Mae.It seems they have done just exactly what Enron and all the others have done- cook the books in order to show bogus gains for the dual pupose of artifically inflating the value of the stock and raking in huge executive bonuses.But how could this happen? This is a corporation overseen by the government!Well, either corporations are inherently evil, or crooked people do crooked things.If corporations are inherently evil, I will kindly ask anti-corporate commentators to call for the disolusion of government corporations, since government is the desired tool of oversight of the corporation. You woudn't ask business to police business. Why would you then ask government to police government? It doesn't make sense. So, bye bye: Fannie Mae, Fannie Mac, Ginnie Mae, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Commodity Credit Corporation, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, Amtrak, and all the myriad government corporations.I won't hold my breath on that. Is it because corporations are not inherently evil after all? Politics23522@blogcritics.org Tue, 21 Dec 2004 23:28:00 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/12/19/173824.php Mike KoleI'm glad discussions on policy are happening across the country. I had more than a little concern that policy would fall off the radar after the elections and during the holiday season. Fortunately, I have observed everything from concerns over the fate of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to quite a lot of discussion on taxation. Taxation is especially important to me. I am an advocate for a fully voluntary society, free of governmental compulsion wherever possible. For instance, I support a completely draft-free, voluntary military. Those who want to serve and possibly go to war are free to do so. Those who do not wish to take on the possibility of fighting a war they might oppose are free to sit on the sidelines. I like US policy on military service. I hold the ability to withhold participation in accordance with one's conscience as the hallmark of freedom. The more a government allows you to choose to sit on the sidelines, the freer the society.I oppose the use of force to achieve political goals. To use the same example's flipside, I oppose impressment into military service. Aside from the practical considerations of the effectiveness of troops made to fight against their will, there is the more important consideration of the will of the individual citizen. Is this person merely a subject? A pawn to be used at the discretion of another human being?No. Not in a truly free society.The question of taxation can be a vexing one. I'm not an anarchist. I do believe that there are a good number of a society's functions that are best managed collectively, and I do believe that these need to be paid for. At the same time, I hold that most of the functions of most of the governments in the United States (whether federal, state, or local) are outside of the parameters of those best managed collectively. For the person who believes completely that all of the things your taxes pay for a justified and correct, keep on paying those taxes and wear that grin.But, if you oppose having to pay for those things you do not believe in, shouldn't you get to opt out? Must you be forced to pay, even though your conscience and your best judgment tell you the funding should be withheld?In today's political climate, we are told that those who wish to keep all of their income rather than to surrender it to taxation are greedy. I cannot help but think of slaves, who are denied any measure of the fruits of their labor while another man appropriates that wealth. Of course, that's a 100% proposition. What about the middle class family that suffers a 50% appropriation at the hands of the government? Isn't greed better described as wanting to take from man what he owns and to use it to achieve a political goal that the man suffering confiscation doesn't even share? To those who would use force to achieve their political goals- I'm talking about Progressives and Socialists especially here, but also the vast majority of Democrats and a slim majority of Republicans- answer me this:What makes slavery wrong? What principle makes it abhorrent? The principle is self-determination. Self-ownership.Note to everyone: this means, you own your body.Clarification for those on 'The Right': This means, you can do what you want to do with your body, no matter how stupid it seems to someone else. You can pump drugs into it, sell it to be used sexually, take it to any country you wish it to visit- anything, so long as you do not initiate force or fraud on another human being.Clarification for those on 'The Left': This means, when you use the body to earn money, you earned it, it's your money. By the way, the mind is part of the body.It always has mystified me how people on 'The Left' can get that government has no place telling people how to use their minds and bodies in the home, but yet insist that government has a rightful place telling people how to use their minds and bodies in commerce. Similarly, 'The Right' can get that the mind and body should be free in commerce, so long as it isn't commerce that may satisfy the mind or body for pleasure at home. Talk about cognitive dissonance. Politics23440@blogcritics.org Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:38:24 EST