Stop Wasting Money

Campaign Finance and So-Called Conservatives

2008-07-01T21:46:00.002-04:00

The Boston Globe broke an awesome story on some dubious campaign fundraising. There is also a follow-up article on The Globe's website.

Short version: Some "Republican" operatives started raising money for candidates through direct mail marketing. They raised millions. But little of the money actually went to the candidates' campaigns. Most went to the operatives.

It's hard enough for challengers to raise money. Now these guys are going to ruin it for the genuine candidates.

If the story is true, then Kimberly Mellissimo of BMW Direct, and another group - Response America - are on the same level as criminals, and they are traitors to what's left of the Republican Party and the conservative movement.

Guilderland Joins the Culture Wars

2008-07-01T21:42:00.002-04:00

Apparently the Guilderland school system decided to wade into the culture wars with a decision about some local teachers.

Read more in the Times Union.

I've met Nelligan, and know a few of his students. The students I know are all ultra-liberal. And they all respect Nelligan even though he has different views.

John Stossel Again

2008-06-24T15:10:00.001-04:00

Awhile back I did a post about John Stossel and the drug war.

Well, he's done it again. Click the following link to read John Stossel on legalizing drugs.

Gay Marriage and the Ron Paul Girl

2008-06-22T14:37:00.001-04:00

I just thought this was funny. The Ron Paul Girl on Gay Marriage:

Repent Sinners! - Gay Marriage in CA - video powered by Metacafe

Ron Paul and the Campaign for Liberty

2008-06-13T09:22:00.003-04:00

Huge news in the Ron Paul movement. With his presidential campaign effectively over, Ron Paul announced the Campaign for Liberty. If you support Ron Paul, please join.

What I like most about it is the mission statement, and that the first item is: Promoting candidates for public office who share our commitment to freedom.

Moving the Ron Paul movement forward means going from one candidate for President to ten or more candidates for Congress, and down the road to hundreds and then thousands of candidates. These candidates will support the Ron Paul message of genuinely smaller government, more freedom, constitutional principles, sound money, and a non-interventionist foreign policy.

One of my tag lines for Steven Vasquez is "Don't leave Ron Paul alone." I love the fact that the movement is coming around to this idea. We need more than one Ron Paul. There are already some credible candidates like Vasquez. The more the merrier. And if Ron Paul can generate buzz, and most of all, funding, then we can seriously challenge the socialist establishment that is perpetuated by both major parties.

The Exaggeration Crisis

2008-06-10T19:34:00.003-04:00

America faces an alarming crisis of epic proportions! Yes, I'm exaggerating, and that's the problem. Everyone is exaggerating everything.

I saw this ad about the "climate crisis":

Okay, it's a little funny. But when did the climate change/global warming issue become a crisis? Even in the most extreme scenarios the biggest changes will take decades to occur. I always thought a crisis was something where the problems are happening now. Hurricane Katrina caused a crisis. If all the fears come true, then global warming might cause a crisis (or many crises) in the future. But it ain't a crisis yet.

Now we've also got the tomato crisis. There's some outbreak of people getting salmonella, and they're pretty sure it's coming from contaminated fresh tomatoes. This is national news, and many are calling it a crisis, including the USA Today (it's several paragraphs down).

If I've got the numbers right, this has made a hundred or so people sick, with maybe a dozen hospitalized, and one guy actually died. This guy dying is of course a tragedy for his family and friends (and for him). But that does not make it a national emergency! One article I read (I can't remember where) said that thousands of people get sick every year from contaminated fresh tomatoes. So how did this become a crisis all of a sudden?

And then I was watching some national news program and the newscaster referred to the flooding problem in the midwest as "heartbreaking devastation." I'm feeling a little bit like Andy Rooney, but is there ever any devastation that isn't heartbreaking? Maybe there's a crisis of people building homes in flood zones, but am I really supposed to feel sad for the people who do that, when they get subsidized for their risky behavior with my tax dollars?

How about the federal government subsidizing those of us who don't live in flood plains, earthquake zones, hurricane prone coastlines, or tornado alleys. I'm sure they'll get around to it.

Trevor Lyman Rocks!

2008-06-09T13:54:00.002-04:00

Just a quick note about one of the greatest Ron Paul supporters, Trevor Lyman. Trevor is the guy who organized the two money bombs, raising something like $10 million for the Ron Paul presidential campaign. That's not all he did but that's what stands out most to me and probably others.

Basically, Lyman channeled lightning twice. He's doing some interesting stuff going forward. Along the lines of his earlier success, he's organizing a money bomb for congressional candidates: FreedomSlate08.com. My man Steven Vasquez is one of the candidates who's in on it. If it goes well we're hoping that the candidates endorsed by Ron Paul raise maybe $500K apiece. That would be a big deal. But even if it's only $50K each it's still a lot for our race.

The other interesting thing Lyman is working on (that I know of) is BreakTheMatrix.com. This is an attempt to overcome the problem of the mainstream media. I'm more optimistic about the chances of another money bomb, mainly because I think it's worked before where the BTM idea is a little more challenging. But I'm rooting for him on both.

I actually had the pleasure of talking with Trevor a few days ago. This is one of the neat things about Ron Paul. A regular guy like me can talk to people at the highest levels of the movement. I've had conversations with Lew Moore (RP campaign manager), Joe Becker (campaign attorney), Tom Lizardo (congressional chief of staff), and now Trevor Lyman.

What I loved about Lyman was his underlying nature. He's just a regular guy. He doesn't think he's anything special or that he knows more about things than anyone else. He still has that humility that is so lacking in others (including myself).

With a guy like Trevor Lyman, all of us in the Ron Paul movement should be hoping he channels lightning a few more times.

Dan Rather Discovers Chomsky

2008-06-08T18:48:00.003-04:00

Just a quick note here. I saw Dan Rather's criticism of the mainstream media just now. Nice to see he figured something out. Too bad he didn't read Noam Chomsky sooner. I read Deterring Democracy more than 10 years ago. Pretty much everything Rather says in his comments could be pulled from that book alone. And Chomsky has said quite a bit more. Not that I agree with him on everything, but he's pretty good on the media.

Who Wants To Be A Candidate?

2008-06-04T21:37:00.002-04:00

Candidates don't just appear magically. There are a variety of reasons why people get into politics and why others stay out.

On the negative side, those who step up in the political arena face the substantial risk of personal attacks. No one likes hearing others saying bad things about them. So you have to have a thick skin to play this game. On the bright side, once you've been in it for a while you realize that your friends don't pay any attention to the attacks, and some may even appreciate you more. One of my best friends was seriously planning to go after someone with a baseball bat for what he'd said about me. It was an outrageously nasty attack, but of course I stopped him.

Still, many people see the nasty side of politics and that convinces them to stay out of it. This is probably not a good thing for democracy. I certainly feel that our opponents in the last Guilderland election went over the line. But they may think the same of me - even though I'm convinced my criticisms of them were fair and not at all personal.

Another thing that keeps people away is lack of interest. I've never understood this. Politics is not only fascinating - it's really important. Government takes about half our money, and has an unfortunately big impact on our lives in so many other ways. To me, public service is a duty. Everyone should not only vote, but volunteer to help with elections, either for a candidate, a party, or for the election system itself. Election inspectors are the unsung heroes of democracy, and many feel that it's getting harder to find volunteers for these roles.

I could go on about why people don't get in. Why do they?

Some people are really motivated on one or more issues. That can drive someone to give it a shot. I think most of these people burn out quickly. Running on an issue only works if most voters care about it as much as you do, and they usually don't. The one-issue candidate usually has a blind spot to this reality.

The most successful candidates rarely run on issues. Here in Albany Paul Tonko is running for Congress and his website doesn't mention a single issue. He must be a shoo-in. :-)

If you're thinking that power and money are big, so am I. Compare someone who's driven by a desire for power instead of concern about an issue. The power-seeker wants to win, and works to figure out what the voters want so they can focus on what matters to them. For the truly power-hungry, the issues don't matter at all.

There may be a spectrum of the issue-oriented on one end and the power-hungry on the other, with some on one end, some on the other, and plenty in the middle. Based on my experiences, there is are big chunks at both ends. I'm closest to the libertarians, many of whom are completely unable to compromise in the slightest on any issues.

I've also met quite a few political operatives. These are people who typically work for the party machinery. They will play just about any issue in whatever way will work best for getting more votes, and have no qualms about using personal attacks - as long as they work.

The hard truth is that the power-hungry have an edge. They will do whatever it takes to win. They also find it easier to work in teams.

Those focused on issues tend to fight with each other on the points where they disagree. Libertarians are a great example. In NY at least, they do so much of this that they never make an impact. There are even some who want to do badly in elections because they don't want people with other ideas to ruin their party. I wish I was kidding. But I'm hopeful that the new state chair, a friend of mine, will find a way around this. But leading libertarians is like herding cats.

So the challenge for the rest of us is to find ways to work in teams, work smart, and work harder than the power-hungry. We have to listen to the voters and figure out what's on their minds. We have to speak to those problems.

And we have to be wary of ourselves. We have to remember what motivates us, and be faithful to our own principles. If, in the end, the voters aren't on the same page with us on the issues, then we have to accept that. In a democracy, the majority is supposed to rule.

It becomes a much harder slog, but our task then is to persuade. My friends at LEAP are doing just that now on the drug war, much as the abolitionists and suffragists did long ago. Another good example is the anti-abortion movement. While I disagree with them on the issue, I respect those in that movement who focus on persuading others that abortion is wrong.

I didn't realize how long this was going to become when I started. Seems like a good place to stop for now. I'll ruminate and maybe do more on this in the future.

Ted Kennedy and Universal Health Care

2008-06-04T21:12:00.003-04:00

I've been scratching my head about the Ted Kennedy brain surgery thing. Here's a guy from Boston who works in Washington DC. New York City is in between the two. And he goes to North Carolina to get the surgery done.

It's my impression that both Boston and New York City have outstanding doctors. Not that they're all great, but there's plenty of good ones. Some people in the Albany area will go to one of these places if they have a serious medical problem. I remember my dad going to Boston when he had a brain tumor. I'd guess that the Washington area also has some pretty good docs.

So why does Kennedy go to Duke? I'm guessing that Doctor Allan Freedman is the best brain surgeon in the whole world, and it's not even a close call. We can all respect Ted Kennedy's desire to have the best.

A bigger issue is what this says about universal health care, one of the great challenges we supposedly face these days (if you're listening to national politicians anyway). Our current medical system has a variety of things going on: Medicare for seniors, Medicaid for the poor, mostly private health insurance for most people with jobs, and a big chunk of people with no insurance.

Oh, and there's one more ... the congressional health plan. That's where congressmen and senators get to go to the best doctors in the world, skipping ahead of everyone else waiting to see them, and the taxpayers pay for the whole ride. I'm betting Kennedy didn't have to pay a copay or deductible for his surgery.

So here's a simple proposal for any universal health care plan. Make sure that members of Congress and the Senate have to be in that plan. They get the same deal as the rest of us. Yeah, that'll be the day.

Jeff Gaul - Niskayuna Wingnut

2008-06-03T13:59:00.004-04:00

Jeff Gaul has been active in the Ron Paul movement, and he's been a big problem here in the Albany area. This post discusses Jeff Gaul and his odd behavior. At the bottom is an embed of an interview with him, for those who want to see and hear him. Form your own opinion.

I think he means well, but there are times when Jeff seems to just go crazy. This is one of the challenges in modern politics. Yes, you can use the web to reach more people, but it also gives the loonies the ability to attack you in so many places.

For some reason Jeff decided to attack our local candidate for Congress. Just recently he sent the following to a Ron Paul group in Long Island:

[The candidate] is a liar and a thief, for starters. Secondly, just listen to him...
He cannot speak nor write. Most importantly, he has admitted, as is true, that he has nothing to offer the ... district and that any support would be best directed to folks like David Gay and John Wallace locally, or others in the country.
...
Jeff Gaul
518/ 382-8282

You can imagine that we would dispute what Jeff Gaul says above. Of course our candidate is not a liar, nor a thief. He certainly can speak and write. I've seen him do both. :-) There are dozens of volunteers working on his campaign who all feel he has plenty to offer the district. And Ron Paul endorsed our candidate, so that's one more vote of confidence.

Our candidate is not opposed to David Gay or John Wallace. Wallace recently attended one of our campaign meetings, and our candidate often says positive things to me about Gay. Most of us are working together to support Ron Paul candidates everywhere.

But Jeff Gaul ... he's off in la la land. Here's an example of his insanity, in some e-mails he sent during our efforts to get Ron Paul on the ballot:

March 23, 2008: What have you been told I accused [our candidate] of stealing? I suggest we stick to the facts and stay away from non-sense, unless you are still not interested in resolving matters appropriately. And by the way, [our candidate] did steal my Schenectady county voter list, as he has failed and refused to return it, as I had anticipated, so that would appropriately be added to the long list of his shortfalls.

March 24 (same thread): that is my point exactly, I am promoting the notion of supporting good candidates, not liars, cheaters, back stabbers, grossly unqualified, bullshit ARTists or those in dire need to feed their ego, or lack thereof.

The best one is from back in December of 2007, after Jeff removed me from what was then the main Albany Meetup for Ron Paul:
Warren:
You and company are the ones that are actually clueless and hope to con and/or mislead, though you are incapable.
You are the one that failed and/or refused to discuss openly!
You, among others, have the audacity, as only one of many examples, to act (try to act) holier than thou.
You have done nothing good for the RP effort, and have done only bad.
Steve has done same good, but a lot of bad.
Ostrowski has done no good and a plenty of bad.
Leonard has done some good and a lot of bad.
The decision to remove the trouble makers (distraction Nazis) has nothing to do with your narrow minded view that you think you have some right to make such determinations, though you do not.
Also, the conversation you and I had is well documented (Jim is a pain in the ass, Tim is a nut, Steve can't articulate, etc.).
Yes, indeed, it is about Ron Paul, and several, like your friend Stevens, have had a difficult time with my resistance to the distractions of your SMALL Libertarian group.
Indeed, YOU ARE WRONG!
I must add that I have no problem you y'all as a group, just with your ill-intentions!

Just to be clear on this, Jim Ostrowski was the leader in the effort to get Ron Paul on the ballot in NY, and to make sure the delegate slate was in order. I assisted Jim in that effort, and we were both at the Board of Elections. We were both paid by the Ron Paul campaign for our work. And Steven Vasquez helped us.

I leave it to you, the faithful reader, to judge for yourself whether Jeff Gaul is someone you would want to rely on. The video embed is below:

Paul Tonko: The Truth Starts to Come Out

2008-06-03T07:02:00.003-04:00

Paul Tonko is running for Congress here in the Albany area. He's gotten a lot of favorable local press for little reason. Now some negative news appears, but so far not in the local papers. Wonder if they'll pick this up.

Check out this story about Paul Tonko on Syracuse.com. I think the site works with the Syracuse Post-Standard, and that may be the source of the article.

Do we really want another guy in Congress who's just going to milk the system? Someone who's going to take money out of our pockets and hand it to wealthy landowners?

Global Warming Hypocrisy: What Do Democrats Drive?

2008-05-31T19:57:00.002-04:00

The other day I was in a parking lot and saw one of our town's Democratic Party leaders driving by in a full-size pickup. And I know another one who always seems to be in a Ford Expedition - a very large SUV.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are flying all over the country in jets (supposedly a big contributor to global warming), and it always seems like these high profile figures (of both parties) travel around in the big SUVs, typically with windows tinted to excess (in violation of a stupid NY law), speeding past normal traffic.

I was driving on the Northway today (I-87 north out of Albany for those who aren't local). Following on the suggestion of my associate, and because we were in absolutely no hurry, I decided to go the speed limit in the right lane. It seemed like the vast majority of vehicles on the road were flying by us, and also the vast majority of vehicles were significantly larger than our 2002 Audi A4 wagon.

My car has a 4-cylinder engine and a manual transmission. It seems like most cars on the road have bigger engines and automatic transmissions - which means they are not as good on gas mileage as my car.

And an awful lot of the people driving fast in those big, powerful, inefficient vehicles are Democrats. The hypocrisy is not limited to the leaders (or the Democrats). A non-partisan friend of mine was arguing with me some time ago. He was concerned about global warming and I was, in my usual fashion, rather unconcerned. He seemed to think I was an idiot for not agreeing with him. All of this took place as he was driving us to an event in his V8 powered large sedan.

Ron Paul Endorses Steven Vasquez

2008-05-29T22:23:00.002-04:00

Really big news for the Steven Vasquez campaign for Congress here in Albany - Ron Paul endorsed Steven's candidacy.

We can't leave Ron Paul alone in Congress any more! Steven Vasquez is the Ron Paul movement's best chance going forward. This is an open seat race - the incumbent is retiring. It's winnable for a Republican -- George Pataki won the district handily in 2002 against a well known and popular Democrat. The Democrats are in disarray, with 8 or 9 candidates in the mix. No other serious Republican candidate has come forward - there is one other candidate but he's doing nothing.

One other big thing - this is a cost-effective district for campaigning. It has only one media market and a relatively inexpensive one.

If just one-tenth of the Ron Paul contributors give one-tenth as much to the Vasquez campaign, we'll have enough to win. Support Steven now at Steven Vasquez for Congress 2008!

In Dr. Paul's words:

I am pleased to endorse Steven Vasquez for Congress. We need Steven in Washington to help advance the agenda of those of us committed to limited government. Steven has valuable experience in business as a successful entrepreneur in Tech Valley. Steven's experience is critical in advancing the goals of fixing the economy by balancing the budget, cutting wasteful Washington spending, and combating inflation. We believe these polices, together with tax reduction and regulatory reform, will protect our economy from serious problems. I believe electing Steven Vasquez will be a big part of advancing these policies.

The campaign press release is below:

May 29, 2008

Presidential Candidate Endorses Vasquez For Congress

Albany - Steven Vasquez picked up a key endorsement Tuesday from GOP Presidential candidate Ron Paul. Congressman Paul (R-Texas) announced his support for Vasquez, saying: "We need Steven in Washington to help advance the agenda of those of us committed to limited government." Vasquez is running for the GOP nomination in the 21st congressional district where incumbent Michael McNulty is retiring.

Paul stunned the political establishment during his 2008 run for the Republican presidential nomination. He raised large sums of money on the Internet with so-called "money bombs," raising more than any other Republican candidate in the 4th Quarter of 2007. Paul also won substantial percentages in a number of races, including second-place finishes in Pennsylvania, Nevada, Nebraska, Oregon and Montana along with double-digit percentages in several other states.

Vasquez is working with the Ron Paul Presidential campaign in an effort to tap into the same fundraising that worked so well. "If we only manage to get 10% of Ron Paul contributors to give only 10% of what they gave him, we'll have plenty for victory in November," said Vasquez campaign finance chair Warren Redlich.

Paul's new book, "Revolution, A Manifesto" quickly rose to the number one spot on the New York Times Nonfiction Bestseller List on May 18, 2008 in its second week on the list. The book is based on his message of freedom and strong monetary policy to restore our economy.

The full text of Ron Paul's endorsement statement follows:

"I am pleased to endorse Steven Vasquez for Congress. We need Steven in Washington to help advance the agenda of those of us committed to limited government. Steven has valuable experience in business as a successful entrepreneur in Tech Valley. Steven's experience is critical in advancing the goals of fixing the economy by balancing the budget, cutting wasteful Washington spending, and combating inflation. We believe these polices, together with tax reduction and regulatory reform, will protect our economy from serious problems. I believe electing Steven Vasquez will be a big part of advancing these policies."

How Bureaucrats Waste Our Money

2008-05-29T07:42:00.002-04:00

This morning the Times Union talks about "tax cheats" in its top front-page article. The content provides a great way of showing how bureaucrats waste our money.

It seems that NY's Department of Taxation and Finance is cracking down on abuse of tax credits. Seems like a good thing, right? I don't mean to criticize this too harshly, but the math in the article provokes concern.

They are doubling the number of "reviews" of people who file for certain tax credits. The article quotes a "spokesman." I digress, but why do they have to have spokesmen? Can't the regular guys who do the work take a second to talk to the media? I'm guessing it's because spokesmen are people who are good at twisting the numbers in a way that looks better.

This year they are targeting 147,000 filers, compared to 70,000 last year. They claim that this has already saved the state $112 million in "potentially fraudulent or undeserved credits and refunds," and that they hope it will save $170 million in total.

Does this mean that the increase is saving all these millions, or is it the total number of reviews. I'll go with my skeptical guess that it's for the whole shebang. So the average review saves the state about $1000.

But there's more to the story. Why did they use the word "potentially"? That is actually answered in the article if you're looking for it. If they challenge your tax credit, you have 30 days to respond with documentation. Some innocent people won't respond within 30 days, and they'll lose their deserved tax credit. Also, the review process takes time and delays refunds, so those who are entitled to their tax credits won't get their refund as early. This means the taxpayer loses either on interest they have to pay to compensate for the delayed refund, or on interest they won't earn.

Another important thing is not reported. How much does it cost to do the average review? If it's only $10/review, then the net is $990 per review and that makes a lot of sense. But I can't imagine any state agency doing anything that cheap. The article provides no analysis of the cost of these reviews. How do we know that the reviews don't cost more than $1000 apiece on average? If they do, then this policy actually loses money. And don't forget the cost to the taxpayer for a tax lawyer or accountant to assist with the audit.

The lesson here is that you should never take a spokesperson at their word. You have to challenge their numbers and ask the tough questions. Bureaucrats are quick to claim credit for what their agencies do. Sometimes it is deserved, but often it's a lot of fluff.

Imagine if our governments focused on cutting spending. They would waste a lot less of our money, and then people would have less incentive to dodge taxes. Then we could spend less money trying to catch the cheaters (and screwing the innocent). A virtuous cycle. I wonder if this could be put to verse or song.

The Tonko Times Union

2008-05-21T15:34:00.002-04:00

The Times Union is falling all over itself to embrace Paul Tonko for Congress. I swear there has to have been five stories about him running.

- He's thinking about running
- He's close to running
- He quit his job so he's probably running
- He's going to announce that he's running
- He announced that he's running.

This doesn't count all the stories before where they speculated that he might run.

Meanwhile, plenty of candidates who have been running get little or no coverage. Um ... media bias?

John Stossel Gets the Drug War

2008-05-20T12:23:00.003-04:00

I went to a great event last week put on by the Marijuana Policy Project. The event was celebrating progress toward getting medical marijuana legislation passed in New York State. Montel Williams was probably the best overall speaker. He suffers from Multiple Sclerosis, and says that medical marijuana is the best treatment he has found for him. This is a common refrain in the movement, and of course it makes plenty of sense to me. Why would governments want to prevent people who are suffering from using what works best for them?

You can see some discussion of this on their site: Montel Williams and Rob Kampia on Fox Business News.

For me, the best speaker was really John Stossel. He's been a critic of the drug war for some time now - see his 2006 article: John Stossel - Rethinking the Drug War for an example.

Stossel got up on stage and attacked the theme of the whole event. I think he said we were celebrating mediocrity. Medical marijuana is the tiniest wedge of an issue in the overall drug war. The real problem is that prohibitions don't work. It didn't work for alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and 30s. It didn't work for cotton in France from 1686-1759. And it isn't working with today's drug war either.

Movements like this are prone to factionalization. Look back at the suffrage movement and you'll see those who were perceived as extremists while others tried to be moderate and work incremental change through the system. There were other fringes as well. The fights within the movement were often more bitter than the battles with their opponents.

Today's drug policy reform movement covers some vast terrain. My friends at Law Enforcement Against Prohibition fit with Stossel in the extremist camp, while MPP is in the moderates. There are a variety of groups pushing for incremental change in different areas. Needle exchange advocates are another example. Stossel's speech was an example of the infighting that one sees in these movements. Fortunately, no one took offense. Maybe everyone was too busy smoking? Well, I didn't see anyone smoking, but a couple of us did notice a scent. We were drinking a little.

My fear with the marijuana movement parallels what I saw in the suffrage movement. Around 1870 some perceived an opportunity to get suffrage for blacks. The extremists wanted to push for women and blacks to get suffrage together, while te moderates felt that it would be easier to get black suffrage first, and the women would be next. The moderates won, and the women waited 50 years.

I see marijuana activism in the same way. I agree that marijuana prohibition is bad policy. But I fear that once marijuana reform happens, the rest of the drug war will get left behind, and all those poor black and hispanic males will rot in prison on cocaine, heroin, and other drug charges for another 50 years or more before we finally get it all figured out.

Now if only we could get John Stossel to run for office. The guy's fantastic!

Latest Lefty Fad: Buy Local

2008-05-15T08:17:00.005-04:00

The latest fad from the left involves something that sounds sensible: Buy local, sustainable produce and meat. The link is to an organization that supports this idea.

[Note: This discussion was picked up on another website: Local Preference, with some good comments.]

This is in my head for two reasons. First, I was in a conversation last night where someone was talking about it, and I could not challenge the speaker on the issue due to circumstances. Next, I read this morning that famed chef Gordon Ramsay jumped on this bandwagon, and then had to go into hiding due to embarrassing hypocrisy.

In short, the idea is (from the above link):

The concept of buying local is simply to buy food (or any good or service) produced, grown, or raised as close to your home as possible.

Sounds simple I guess. Why should we do this?

With industrialization, our food is now grown and processed in fewer and fewer locations, meaning it has to travel further to reach the average consumer's refrigerator. Although this method of production is considered efficient and economically profitable for large agribusiness corporations, it is harmful to the environment, consumers and rural communities.

There had to be large corporations in there somewhere. Corporations, especially large ones with big adjectives like agribusiness or pharmaceutical, always seem to be the bad guy in the leftist mantra. There have to be profits in there somewhere too, because profits are bad. But let's make it worse by calling it "economically profitable." And of course, blame ultimately lies with industrialization. I'm surprised globalization didn't get in there.

Before I get more into my own rant against this silliness, I'll point to a good article that debunks it by Gillian Bowditch in the Times Online. Also there's a research article from New Zealand about food miles. The latter brings to mind who loses if locally grown becomes common. Small countries that are distant from large populations. It's actually much tougher on poor countries, but don't forget about those Kiwis!

It sounds persuasive. Locally grown food only has to travel maybe 20 miles to get to your grocery store or restaurant. Some produce in the stores may come from thousands of miles away. Think of all the fossil fuels that were burned to get it here. I can do that. As the first site mentions, it may have come on freighter ships over oceans. Hmm.

So a freighter ship carrying 100,000 tons of stuff burns maybe a hundred thousand gallons of fuel on its way across the ocean (I'm totally guessing here, but I hope commenters will do their research and give more accurate numbers). So there's one gallon of fuel for a ton of stuff. A ton of stuff is 2000 pounds. So my one pound of broccoli required all of 1/2000 of a gallon of fuel to be shipped across the ocean. Maybe I'm off by a factor of 10 - it's still only 1/200 of a gallon. If I eat 200 pounds of broccoli a year that's only 1 gallon of gas at the worst. Some people use that much gas driving to the grocery store. Not me though - I live about 2 miles away and drive a 4-cylinder with a stickshift. But I still go through probably 500 gallons a year driving to work and stuff.

More of the bunkum from the left:
Aside from the environmental harm that can result from processing, packaging and transporting long-distance foods, the industrial farms on which these foods are often produced are major sources of air and water pollution. Small, local farms tend to be run by farmers who live on their land and work hard to preserve it. Buying local means you can talk directly to the farmer growing your food and find out what they do and how they do it.

Actually, industrial farms tend to be more environmentally efficient than small local farms. Economies of scale work that way. It may be that some small farmers try to harm the environment less, but some of them are worse than the big corporations. Maybe I can talk to my local farmer about how he does it, but he could lie and I don't understand his business well enough to know the difference. Oh, and by the way, all farms are local where they are.

My experience last night catches one of the problems with this notion. I was in New York City. The person I mentioned was complaining that New York City restaurants don't use locally grown produce.

How can all the New York City restaurants get locally grown produce? Take a look at a map! There aren't enough farms within 100 miles to supply food for a population that size. Try Tokyo and you'll see an even bigger problem - more people and a lot less arable land. The whole country is the size of California, and something like 90% mountainous.

Oh, and I shouldn't forget that buying local also helps those struggling local farmers. You know, the ones who own hundreds of acres of land worth millions of dollars, getting thousands of our tax dollars in subsidies, and making huge money off the current increase in prices of agricultural commodities. See, I can use big words too. :-)

Sam Brownback and Washington Half-Asses

2008-05-14T06:25:00.003-04:00

Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas), formerly known as a half-assed presidential candidate, showed himself to be a half-assed policy wonk yesterday. He co-authored an opinion piece (with David Blankenhorn) called "End the Welfare Marriage Penalty." Titled End the Welfare Marriage Penalty they make the entirely sensible argument that current welfare rules discourage marriage among the poor. If you get married you lose benefits.

Some time ago there was an effort to reduce taxes on married couples, as in some situations the fact that a couple is married caused them to pay higher taxes than if they were not married. I actually have clients who divorced for this reason but stayed together, then remarried recently when their situation changed so that marriage did not cause a big tax hit. So that was and/or is a real consequence of our tax policy.

Brownback explains how the welfare system imposes similarly bad incentives on those getting welfare, and further how bad that is for the poor and for society. Again, this was a well-reasoned argument.

But then he says this:
Our proposal is simple: ... We should allow newly married couples to continue to receive all of their benefits for the first three years of marriage, thus mitigating the marriage penalty currently paid by lower-income couples. ... When that day comes, the government's message to low-income Americans will have changed dramatically. We will be saying: Your marriage matters – for you and for all of us.

Sam Brownback has been in Washington so long he probably doesn't see how half-assed this is. He wants to end the marriage penalty by putting it off for three years. You see Senator, if you want to end something, you end it. You don't delay it.

Sam Brownback is really saying this: My message to low-income Americans has changed slightly ... I'm saying: Your marriage matters - for three years. After that we don't care any more.

When they "ended" the marriage tax penalties, did they just end them for three years after marriage? Certainly not. How does Brownback's proposal discourage divorce? It doesn't. It does nothing for those who are already married and on welfare.

Maybe this is Brownback's stab at becoming the VP nominee for John McCain. Or maybe he's trying to establish some policy credentials for his 2012 run for President after McCain gets trounced by Obama. What it shows is how years inside the Beltway can warp your thinking. In the good old days they did one term and got out as fast as they could.

FLDS, Teen Pregnancy and Due Process

2008-05-12T08:32:00.003-04:00

I must be missing the whole FLDS story. If I understand correctly, the state of Texas has taken nearly 500 children away from their families. The main concern underlying all of this is that young girls, as young as 13, are being "spiritually married" to older men and they're getting pregnant. There may be other kinds of alleged abuse, but the teens getting pregnant appears to be the big one.

So why are they taking infants away from their mothers? I'm reading stories about women with six kids having to deal with their children being spread all over a rather large state.

Under substantive due process, a state infringing fundamental rights must be advancing a compelling state interest in a narrowly tailored manner. To put that in a potentially relevant way, you can't use a shotgun approach - you have to use a sniper rifle.

Taking away infants from their mothers has little to do with preventing teen pregnancy. Taking away girls from the ages of 10-14 would have made more sense - it would have looked more like the narrow tailoring required by the Constitution.

There's a bunch of questions in all this:

Is our society any good at preventing teen pregnancy in the first place? Who are we "normal people" to tell these people about sexuality and teenagers? How old was Cher when she ran off with Sonny Bono (and he later became a congressman).

I do recognize that part of this is a valid concern about these girls being forcibly raped. But let's not forget that this happens in supposedly normal communities too. Are these girls going to be safer in a regular high school?

How about procedural due process? Was there some imminent danger that required removal of all these kids with no advance hearings? Procedural due process is supposed to involve notice and an opportunity to be heard, and this is generally before the state infringes our rights.

There's the religious freedom issue. What if the state decided to cart off all the Jewish kids because Jewish families give wine to 13-year-old boys at their Bar Mitzvahs? I suggest that states not try this one, because we have better access to lawyers than our FLDS friends.

Best Miley Cyrus Quote

2008-04-30T07:24:00.003-04:00

With all the hubbub about the "racy" Miley Cyrus photos, the best quote was from an actor named Johnny Galecki:

I saw all this news coverage and I figure this is a great day. The war must be over.

From the Toronto Globe and Mail.

That hit the nail on the head. I can understand some people being upset about the photos. But I just don't see why it's such a big story. Imagine a teenage girl looking sexy. Does anyone remember Brooke Shields in The Blue Lagoon, and Pretty Baby? I don't remember the latter movie (I was probably too young), but I remember all the criticism about Blue Lagoon. Shields had nude scenes and she was younger than Miley Cyrus is now.

The story also hits on how Puritanism is still so prevalent in America. The greatest love interest in the history of romance is at least arguably Juliet from Romeo and Juliet. Juliet was 13 years old. For some reason females become fertile in their early teens and peak before the age of 18. You would think those who believe in the theory of evolution would see this as the design of the species. And in an interesting alliance with Darwin, shouldn't religious people (and not just those in cults) believe teenage girls should be sexually active (in marriage of course), as that would appear to be the intent of the intelligent design? Instead both groups appear to be together on the opposite side.

Another take is the notion that men who find teenage girls attractive are perverts. If you look at literature like Shakespeare, and at some historical figures like Sir William Johnson (a prominent pre-revolutionary leader in New York), you get the impression that it used to be normal for men, even much older men, to be interested in teenage girls.

Of course I have to balance this with the fact that I have two daughters. They're young now, but someday they'll become teenagers. They'll probably want to wear bikinis and do other things I won't like because they're my daughters. I'm going to need a shotgun or two. :-)

Guilderland: Glass Works Village and Traffic

2008-04-02T01:18:00.004-04:00

Do people in Guilderland care about traffic on Route 20 (Western Avenue)?

The biggest item on tonight's Town Board agenda involved Glass Works Village. This proposed development would increase traffic. It seems like a good project. Where's the balance for the Town? So far I have yet to hear a single resident express concern about this. If the residents stay quiet, the board may have to assume that traffic is not a reason to stop this project.

Some background: A company, Platform Realty Group, proposes to develop a 50+ acre parcel of land near the Guilderland YMCA and Guilderland Elementary School. The proposed development (named Glass Works Village) would add roughly 300 homes and 200,000 square feet of commercial space (offices and retail). The current zoning would allow maybe 50 houses, so this is a far more intense use than the zoning currently allows. The idea behind the development is that the nature of it - a mixed use - will lead to people using their cars less because they will live close enough to certain things that they will be able to walk easily. If your office is in the development, you can walk to work. You can walk to the library, the YMCA, and the school. It's not a huge walk to 20 Mall (though I suspect not many people will walk that far for groceries).

Tonight we reviewed the "Environmental Impact Statement" (EIS) and made our "Findings" regarding environmental impact. I had a number of concerns with these documents, but the biggest has to do with traffic on Western Avenue (Route 20). Some relevant documents are on the Town website at: Guilderland Planning Department. Regarding traffic, the most important document is the (a large PDF document) Glass Works Village Traffic Study - Appendix C1.

Essentially, this project will increase traffic on Route 20, especially at the intersection with Route 155. I think the most important impact is on eastbound (toward Albany) traffic in the morning rush hour, but there are other big impacts. Platform's initial proposed findings ignored most traffic issues, including at 155 and 20. I sent a proposed revision and tonight we agreed on a final set of findings that acknowledged the traffic issue.

Right now morning traffic heading toward Albany on Western backs up to Winding Brook Drive (where the YMCA and the school are) on occasion. If this project goes through those backups will be more frequent, and I think it may even push back all the way to Willow Street, and more often. The intersection will also be worse going northbound on Route 155 in the morning. In the afternoon things will get worse westbound on Route 20 and southbound on 155.

Within a month or two, we will be making a decision on whether to approve this project. As I see it this sets a precedent for more projects like it in the future, meaning even more of an impact on traffic. To quote from the "Guilderland Hamlet Neighborhood Plan:"

Proposals ... currently under review (Glass Works Village PUD) will alter the existing character of this area .... While the Central Hamlet will become more intensely developed on the south side of Route 20, these projects present an excellent opportunity to tie together the various community amenities and establish a model for “hamlet-style” development for the Guilderland Hamlet Neighborhood and other areas of town.

We are talking about a model for future development. So if Gade Farms decides to turn their 200+ acres into a project like this, it will mean over 1000 new homes and nearly one million square feet of commercial space. And Route 20 will become a parking lot.

In the long term something more drastic needs to be done with Route 20, like roundabouts at 20 and 155, 20 and 146 (by the Stewarts), and maybe elsewhere. The so-called Comprehensive Plan (I say so-called because it's not comprehensive and not really a plan either) is inadequate because it fails to address the intersection of 155 and 20. The Guilderland Hamlet document talks about a roundabout for 146 and 20 (a good idea) but that hasn't been implemented yet. Is a roundabout at 155 and 20 an option? The Hamlet study talked about Glass Works Village having 200 or so residences. They're now talking about 300.

Another concern that really bothers me about this project is the concept of spot zoning. There was a recent case, Baumgarten v. Town of Northampton, 35 A.D.3d 1081, decided by the area's appellate court in 2007. The critical language from that case (citations omitted) is (geeky lawyer stuff in italics):

Petitioners allege that the Town Board engaged in illegal spot zoning, which is "[d]efined as the process of singling out a small parcel of land for a use classification totally different from that of the surrounding area, for the benefit of the owner of such property and to the detriment of other owners". While numerous factors are taken into account in evaluating such a claim, the ultimate inquiry is whether the challenged zoning "is other than part of a well-considered and comprehensive plan calculated to serve the general welfare of the community". Here, as noted, the Town Board engaged in an extensive review of the proposed project. The parameters of the project fell well within the guidelines for a planned unit development district, the parcel is located in an area where there is a mix of residential, commercial and recreational properties and no adverse impact to these surrounding properties was substantiated. Moreover, while there is no doubt that the zoning amendment benefitted the owners of the subject parcel, it also benefitted the general welfare of the community by creating seasonal housing to accommodate tourism in the area. In short, the record discloses that sufficient forethought was given to the challenged determinations, and petitioners failed to overcome the strong presumption of validity that attached to them. Finally, the record before us contains sufficient proof that the Town Board complied with all statutory posting and publication requirements.

Some more key language, from earlier in the decision:

a planned unit development district is permitted under the Town's zoning ordinance provided numerous criteria are met, including minimum area requirements (i.e., not less than 10 acres), specified use requirements (including seasonal, residential developments), density requirements (not less than one half of an acre per dwelling unit) and coverage and open space requirements (building coverage cannot exceed 20% of the land area)

Notably missing from our zoning code (§280-17) are building coverage and density requirements. We do have open space requirements (at least 25%), minimum area (15 acres) and use requirements (residential and some limited business uses). I also don't see how this project benefits the general welfare of the community. It benefits the developers and the future residents.

In the above case, the person challenging the proposed development was represented by Peter Barber on the appeal. Barber is the Guilderland zoning chair. Northampton was represented by Michael Poulin, a friend of mine from law school. (Yes, it really is a small world.) Barber argued that the development in that case was "illegal spot zoning." I'm very concerned that the Town's role in rezoning for the Glass Works Village project looks a lot like spot zoning too. I don't think this is resolved by saying nice things about the project in the so-called Comprehensive Plan documents. It's not comprehensive to say "we like this project." Our zoning code needs clearer rules about where such developments will be allowed, and what the requirements for them will be. I'm not sure our current zoning code is sufficient to avoid the spot zoning problem.

Frankly, I agree with Barber on his appeal. This is not what zoning is supposed to be. Doing things this way leads to a "kiss the ring" approach and we see that here. Part of the proposal is that they'll pay a $1 million in "mitigation fees" to the Town to make up for the impact of the project. If it's a good project and its benefits outweigh the costs, they shouldn't have to pay mitigation fees. If the benefits aren't enough, they shouldn't be able to buy their way out of that. Maybe that $1 million should go toward fixing Route 20?

With all that said, Glass Works Village really does look like a great project. The people at Platform Realty have done a lot of work and have a vision that seems good. I hope Guilderland residents will take a careful look at it, and at the traffic impact, and let us know what they think.

David Mamet: A Conservative? Kinda sorta ...

2008-03-27T08:54:00.002-04:00

I've seen two articles about this in the papers and had to read it.

David Mamet in the Village Voice

Mamet writes a lengthy discourse on politics. Sort of a "how I figured out I'm not really a liberal but a conservative in stead." Well, that's how some are interpreting it. I'm not sure he's really a conservative just yet, but it was a great read. I hope Mamet keeps writing on politics. He'd make a great columnist.

Politics Can Be Frustrating

2008-03-24T09:46:00.002-04:00

Running for office has its advantages and disadvantages. Mostly it's the latter. If you win there are some advantages, but winning is difficult for non-incumbents and even when you do win it's not as rosy as you might think.

One example of the frustration is how you can get attacked. Sometimes it comes from the opposition. Depending on the nature of these attacks, it's usually not so bad. You see that coming.

But sometimes you get blindsided. You might get sandbagged by someone you thought was a close ally. Usually this is more of a private matter. On the public side, you might get flamed by a wingnut. One friend of mine has been accused of all sorts of things by a guy who seems mentally unbalanced to me. When you see everything he does together, you know he's nuts. But someone might read one thing he says somewhere and not know the full story.

I'll say this: Politics is hard enough. If you've got a problem with a candidate, then it's okay not to support that candidate. It's also okay to criticize your opponent, as long as you stay within reasonable bounds. To quote a good friend, "it's what they do, not who they are." Translating ... criticize them for their actions, but don't call them names.

But if your problem is with a candidate and you don't have a horse in the race, then stay out of that one. Find a candidate you like and support that candidate. We need more positive in politics and less negative. Or heck, run as a candidate yourself. Run once and you'll understand how hard it is, and you might not be so quick to go after someone else.

Steven Vasquez for Congress: Tech Savvy for Tech Valley

2008-03-21T12:23:00.004-04:00

I'm very excited. My friend Steven Vasquez announced today that he's running for Congress: See the Steven Vasquez press release.

Steven really understands the Stop Wasting Money philosophy. He was very active and demonstrated great leadership in the local Ron Paul movement.

The coolest thing is the guy's got real tech savvy. He's got engineering degrees from RPI, plus an MBA, and he started up a company in the area. Who better to lead Tech Valley than a guy with that kind of background.

Steven Vasquez

Go Steven!