Br'er Rabbit and the Myth of Hard Work - Oh, Dear, the Privileged are Feeling Persecuted Again

Obama has mentioned redistribution of wealth, and the wealthy are in full freak-out mode. Of course, the furor is completely false, and as wealth gets redistributed every day in every economic transaction, and the "socialist" redistribution that Obama has mentioned is nothing more than reversing the tax breaks that Bush showered on the uber-wealthy. Heck, back when he was a maverick, McCain opposed those same give-aways to the wealthy.

But they are dusting off the apocryphal old tales of how they are smugly demonstrating that those uppity youngsters don't really want to share. Yesterday, I received a story about a guy redistributing a waiter's tip to a homeless guy, as well as a crudely-drawn cartoon of a fat homeowner stealing kids' Halloween candy to go trick-or-treating for themselves. A couple weeks ago, another relatively wealthy friend sent me a story attempting to illustrate the evil of redistribution by comparing it to taking grades from a hardworking student and sharing them with her party-girl roommate.

I love these stories. They are a fascinating genre of fiction, mixing hilariously bogus analogies with self-serving credit to the older (presumptively) white dude outsmarting the naive youngsters. Honestly, if a doctoral student is looking for a thesis subject on mythology, a comparison of these little morality fables to Br'er Rabbit and Native American Coyote Trickster tales would offer some great insights.

The fact that they are being dusted off again, after circulating during Reagan's "Welfare Queen" indignation and the reign of the "Angry White Males" of midterm elections in the Clinton years, is fascinating. What is it now that brings out the stories of white male wit and triumph?

Obama is giving tax breaks to those shiftless, lazy, homeless, naive Americans earning less than a quarter million dollars per year!

These days, from the privileged Republican perspective, redistribution of the tax burden off of the middle class and onto those earning more than a quarter million dollars a year is equivalent to giving money to homeless people. The guy driving a "lesser" BMW and earning only $190,000 is analogous these days to the chimerical Welfare Queens driving their mythical Cadillacs in less skewed times.

Does that strike anyone else as odd? The Republicans are hooting and hollering because the redistribution of American wealth may shift from a shoveling dollars to those with incomes over a quarter million dollars a year to allowing it to stay with those somehow scraping by on something less than a quarter million dollars a year!

And this comes weeks after $700 billion got redistributed to Wall Street firms so they could fund trips and bonuses.

The horrors! The oppression! These are dark times, indeed, if you are struggling to get by on a quarter million dollars a year and a presidential candidate is asking you to step up and shoulder burdens similar to those you had to shoulder during the era of Clintonian Peace and Prosperity.

A better writer would close after mocking the uber-wealthy and their strange obsession with telling apocryphal myths illustrating their wit in the face of oppression by their unworthy underlings, but I have to go one more step and explode another myth that underlies these tales.

On the whole, the very well-paid don't work much harder than the average worker. They happen to be in positions where they generate more wealth, and I have no problem with them getting paid what they are getting paid, but they are NOT, by and large, working harder than you are.

There are a hell of a lot of minor-leaguers working a hell of a lot harder than Johnny Damon is. There are legions of middle-managers putting in longer hours than the people in the Executive Suite. The average factory worker goes home a lot more weary than the owner who happens to have inherited the company.

It's not hard work that pays in our economy. It's education, connections, innate talent, good judgment, the socio-economic class you were brought up in, ability to handle stress, and good old-fashioned luck. I'm not saying that well-paid workers don't deserve their high salaries, but don't try to argue that hard work is what makes the difference. It's harder actual work to run the counter at McDonald's than it is to be regional manager in charge of inventory, but the pay difference favors the regional manager. Again, the stress level, educational and intellectual demands, and other factors more than justify the pay differential, but when the wealthy start describing hard work to you, remember that they have to pay a personal trainer to help them break a sweat.

Voter Turnout Looking Good in Kansas City

I dropped by the absentee voter office yesterday afternoon, and it was packed! A line snaked out the door, and people were shoulder-to-shoulder at the counter. One of the people in line had come from another location where they told him that the wait would be two hours.

Two women who came in were told they needed to go to Independence to vote. They didn't grumble or look discouraged - they got directions and headed out to Independence.

I am officially optimistic. There was excitement in the air.

Beer Update

Saturday is teach-a-friend to homebrew day. I'm going to be firing up the equipment around 9:00, and making 10 gallons of Porter. We'll be converting 20 pounds of grain, 3 ounces of hops, a little bit of yeast and a whole lot of water into something that should taste something like Samuel Smith's Taddy Porter. Drop me an email if you want to learn how to brew. We should be finished in the early afternoon.

Peter Kinder Loses Temper, Compares Dr. Sam Page to Hitler and Goebbels

I wrote yesterday about how well-qualified Sam Page is for the position of Lieutenant Governor. I didn't focus much on Kinder, the incumbent, other than to point out even he that doesn't realize the scope of the job, because I wanted to stay positive on one of the best and nicest candidates I have met in my years of political involvement.

In the video below, Peter Kinder shows his anger about getting caught rewarding a $40,000 campaign donor with a $1,000,000 tax credit, and compares Dr. Sam Page to Hitler and Goebbels - it's at about 2:15.

Peter Kinder, please get control of yourself.

Looking Down Ballot: Dr. Sam Page for Lieutenant Governor

When I met Dr. Sam Page, I asked with genuine puzzlement why he would want to be the Lieutenant Governor. Underlying my puzzlement was my impression that Lieutenant Governor is kind of a half-hearted ambition, kind of like a kid dreaming of being the MVP of Minor League Baseball or wanting to be Alfred instead of Batman.

Sam Page wants to be the Lieutenant Governor, and Missourians should give him the job. It turns out that under Missouri's Constitution, the Lieutenant Governor is more than just a "Vice Governor", and Sam Page is uniquely qualified to carry out the duties of the job. Here, from Sam Page's web site, is a description of the task he is seeking:

The Lieutenant Governor assumes the powers and duties of the Governor when the Governor is absent from the state or is unable to serve. This is common knowledge, but the other roles of the office are little known:

* The Lieutenant Governor is the only statewide elected official that is part of both the Executive and Legislative branches. Under the Constitution, the Lieutenant Governor is President of the Missouri Senate and presides over the Senate, subject to the procedural rules of the Senate.
* The Constitution also gives the Lieutenant Governor the right to debate and vote on issues when the Senate sits as a Committee of the Whole.
* The Lieutenant Governor is to stand ready to cast a vote in the case of a tie.
* In addition, by law, the Lieutenant Governor serves on Twelve Boards and Commissions and of these, half have much to gain by the presence of a physician. Sam can and will make a serious contribution.

Commissions and Boards

* THE GOVERNOR'S COUNCIL ON PHYSICAL FITNESS AND HEALTH
The Council promotes physical fitness and health throughout the state by implementing programs, fostering communication and cooperation and developing statewide support.
* THE MISSOURI SENIOR RX PROGRAM (CHAIR)
The Program assists seniors in handling high costs of prescription drugs.
* THE PERSONAL INDEPENDENCE COMMISSION (CO-CHAIR)
The Commission examines existing programs and services, provides community based treatment, facilitates communication and collaboration between state agencies, Health and Community based services, and consumer directed care.
* THE STATEWIDE SAFETY STEERING COMMITTEE
* SPECIAL HEALTH, PSYCHOLOGICAL, AND SOCIAL NEEDS OF MINORITY OLDER INDIVIDUALS COMMISSION
The Commission studies certain needs of the state's minority older individuals and makes recommendations.
* THE BOARD OF FUND COMMISSIONERS
The Board issues, redeems, and cancels state general obligation bonds and performs other administrative activities related to state general obligation debt as assigned by law.
* THE BOARD OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS
The Board has general supervision and charge of state facilities at the seat of government. The Board also has the authority to issue revenue bonds for the construction of state office buildings and certain other facilities.
* THE MISSOURI DEVELOPMENT FINANCE BOARD
The Board assists infrastructure and economic development projects in Missouri by providing the critical component of the total financing for projects that have a high probability of success but are not feasible without the Board's assistance.
* THE MISSOURI HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
The Commission works to provide quality, safe, affordable housing for low and moderate-income citizens of Missouri.
* THE MISSOURI RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
The council adopts and revises a comprehensive state rural investment guide consisting of policy statements, objectives, standards, and program criteria to guide state agencies in establishing and implementing programs relating to rural development.
* THE MISSOURI TOURISM COMMISSION
The Missouri Tourism Commission promotes the growth of Missouri's travel industry.
* THE SECOND STATE CAPITOL COMMISSION
The Commission evaluates and recommends courses of action on the restoration and preservation of the Capitol.
* THE VETERANS BENEFITS AWARENESS TASK FORCE (CHAIR)
The Task Force helps Missouri veterans access and receive their earned benefits.
* THE MISSOURI COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION
The Commission nurtures volunteerism by encouraging an atmosphere that enables citizen service to prosper.
* ADVISOR TO DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY/SECONDARY EDUCATION ON EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND THE PARENTS-AS-TEACHERS PROGRAM

Sadly, our current Lieutenant Governor does not even realize the scope of his duties. Buried in a long article about the race in the Kansas City Star is this horrifying indication of the incumbent's lack of concern for his duties: "On early-childhood issues, Kinder said he did not consider them part of the lieutenant governor’s portfolio of tasks." Sadly, the incumbent Lieutenant Governor has the same uninformed view of his job as I had, before I met Dr. Sam Page.

Dr. Sam Page not only knows what the job of Lieutenant Governor entails, he is eager to take it on and do it well. Missouri is lucky to have a man of his caliber running for the job, and we should take the opportunity to replace an uninformed, underqualified Republican with an impressive, serious Democrat.

Vote for Sam Page for Lieutenant Governor.

Looking Down Ballot: Question - Light Rail

The last item on next Tuesday's ballot will be the Light Rail question. I've struggled with this one, caught between the hopeful image of clean rail cars swiftly delivering workers around the city, and the staggering reality of spending a billion dollars for an abbreviated gimmick. As much as I want to embrace the change, I cannot get on board for the light rail extravaganza, and I will be voting against it.

I reach that conclusion regretfully and respectfully. I think the vast majority of the supporters of Light Rail are forward-thinking and well-intentioned. I simply think they are not paying enough attention to the reality of the proposal. In my opinion, the light rail proposal costs too much, accomplishes too little, disproportionately burdens the poor, weakens our city's ability to address the future, and contains way too many unresolved questions.

Costs too much. Even the proponents of this measure acknowledge that we're looking at spending a billion dollars on the starter line. That's over $2,200 dollars for every man, woman and child in Kansas City. Now, I'm perfectly willing to blow big taxpayer dollars for the right project, but not for a train that doesn't even get me to the airport. And, after we install it, we have to pay operating subsidies every year to keep it running. In the face of an economic slowdown and a tightening of credit, can Kansas City truly afford to saddle itself with another expense that keeps on charging?

Accomplishes too little. This line won't get anyone to the airport. This line won't get anyone out to South Johnson County. You won't be able to ride it to the stadiums. It won't serve the West Side, or the Northeast. It will probably skip Westport, and it will definitely skip The Legends. It's only a starter line - a truncated version of what we all wish we could have.

While my optimistic friends claim that we have to start somewhere, the truth is that this "start" will have us paying 3/8 of a percent in sales tax for 25 years. Does anybody believe that we will be able to afford to toss in another, probably higher, tax to run it up to the airport in a few years? And then another to run it to the stadiums? No magic genie is going to make our starter line grow into a robust rail system. Instead, we will blow all our money on a starter line that will remain a starter line for at least a quarter century.

Disproportionately burdens the poor. Sales taxes are regressive - those who spend everything they own on goods to survive bear a disproportionate measure of the tax burden. Sales taxes in a city surrounded by other shopping venues are even more regressive. Ironically, those of us blessed with personal transportation will be able to cruise over to a locale with a reduced sales tax rate while those dependent on the rails will be stuck with high taxes.

Weakens our city's ability to address the future. The billion dollars we are talking about spending on this starter line is money that will not be around to meet future wants, or even our current needs. We have a host of infrastructure needs that aren't as pretty or exciting as a rail car, but they must to be met. If we go "all in" for light rail, we will be taxing ourselves to the hilt and we will not be able to go back and tax ourselves to address our delapidated sewer system, or upgrade our buses, or build a downtown stadium, or any of the dozens of desires and must-haves that we will develop in the coming years. We're kind of like the kid swearing to his parents that if he can just have this bike, he will never, ever ask for anything else again. Smart parents know better.

Too many unresolved questions. What route will the plan take through downtown? Cordish wants the route adjusted away from Grand even though that is the most logical route available, and nobody will tell Kansas City voters what route we will use. (A cynic might be justified in concluding that the planners simply don't want to announce Cordish's victory until after voters are fully on the hook.) Similarly, we don't know what the ridership projections are - yet we're supposed to tax ourselves without knowing them. Even more shockingly, we don't know how much, if any, the federal government will toss into this project. The economic feasibility of the project hinges on the feds coming up with almost half of the money, but there's no promise that we'll get anything remotely like that amount. But, regardless, the tax will start being imposed right away.

A light rail system would be a nice thing to have, and I want one. I don't dispute that it would help some workers get to some jobs, and it would have some economic development benefits along the line. Light rail is a great idea. But so are a lot of things that we cannot afford. We cannot afford to blow a billion bucks on a starter line that will take too few people too few places.

Sunday Poetry: Where Will Love Go?, by Sharon Olds

Where Will Love Go?

Where will love go? When my father
died, and my love could no longer shine
on the oily, drink-darkened slopes of his skin,
then my love for him lived inside me,
and lived wherever the fog they made of him
coiled like a spirit. And when I die
my love for him will live in my vapor
and live in my children, some of it
still rubbed into the grain of the desk my father left me
and the dark-red pores of the leather chair which he
sat in, in a stupor, when I was a child, and then
gave me passionately after his death-our
souls seem locked in it, together,
two alloys in a metal, and we're there
in the black and silver workings of his 40-pound
1932 Underwood,
the trapezes stilled inside it on the desk
in front of the chair. Even when the children
have died, our love will live in their children
and still be here in the arm of the chair,
locked in it, like the secret structure of matter,

but what if we ruin everything,
the earth burning like a human body,
storms of soot wreathing it
in permanent winter? Where will love go?
Will the smoke be made of animal love,
will the clouds of roasted ice, circling
the globe, be all that is left of love,
will the sphere of cold, turning ash,
seen by no one, heard by no one,
hold all
our love? Then love
is powerless, and means nothing.

by Sharon Olds
______________________________

It was an awful week of funerals and loss. A friend lost his mother, after a long battle with cancer, filled with false hopes and sad, inexorable truth. She was the grace that transformed a house full of males into a home filled with men, and she lives on in her sons and grandchildren. Another friend lost her father, suddenly, awfully, stunningly, last Saturday morning, a morning which could have been spent outdoors with his beloved grandchildren.

Sharon Olds writes about the things we struggle with as humans. Birth, sex, death, separation - those things that make the human spirit struggle to understand, or at least to cope. There's something old-fashioned about Olds' determination to make poetry about the big topics, rather than academic minutiae or opaque personal mutterings. Where most contemporary poets shrink from the challenge of writing poems clearly about that which moves us, Sharon Olds takes on the grand topics and writes bravely about unfashionably important issues. Go read some of her other poetry here or here, or, best yet, go buy one of her books.

Sharon Olds did her undergraduate work at Stanford and earned her doctorate from Columbia University. Rather than sinking into the dull depths of academic poetry of tweed, she took a vow as she walked down the grand steps of Columbia's library - "I will give up everything I’ve learned if I can just write my own poems." That authenticity rings through all her poetry - she pours straight life into her poems, without the typical dilution of literary allusions or unrecognizable, stretched images.

But back to this poem - it is awful, disturbing, and just right. Olds takes the comfort that we give to ourselves and wraps it in imagery of smoke from cremation and ghostly vapors. The image simply fits for those of us who have lost parents - they seem to hover around us, not as voices or Family Circle ghosts in the clouds, but as a penumbra of themselves. It's a comforting thought, and, while wholly unoriginal, it is well-expressed and the first stanza is complete in itself, if she were seeking to simply and competently express what many of us have thought. Something of my parents exists in that which has been handed down, and they are not entirely gone.

The second stanza is the kicker. The second stanza is what makes this poem worth reading, and it's both troubling and comforting.

What if we ruin everything? What if we fail to love forward? What if we get caught up in choking smoke and allow roasted ice to cover the world? What if we allow our sadness to settle in and wound us so deeply that we are unable to love again? What if our grief leaves us with mere animal love, basic instinct and procreation, but devoid of the joy and sparkle that our departed have given us? If our love is buried or cremated, then death has conquered.

On Friday morning, I stood with a crowd around a grave site in Gallatin, Missouri. The clouds on Friday were a riot of grays, and the land surrounding the hill of the cemetery was a breathtaking mix of autumnal colors dashed together. The site of my friend's father's final resting place was beauty and splendor at its most stark.

Before the graveside service started, I saw my friend walking by herself for a moment, soaking in the beauty. At the funeral of my other friend's mother, I saw how he looked to and comforted his children.

It was an awful week of funerals and loss, but love is powerful, and means everything.

Writing in Candidates - Not as Easy as You Might Think

The Write-In Ballot is the fantastical "out" for independent voters everywhere. Don't like the candidates listed for a given position? Go ahead and write in your own name or your best friend's or Kanye West. You might not win, but at least you will have lodged a vote for the best candidate for the office, while striking a blow for independence. In the back of your mind, you may even indulge the fantasy of puzzled pundits reacting to a tide of votes for an unknown name. Can't you picture Wolf Blitzer on election night announcing, "In an unexpected development, it appears that Tony Botello has emerged as the leading vote-getter for Missouri Governor. Stand by for Jay Nixon's stunned concession speech . . ."?

Unfortunately, it's not quite that easy.

Write-in ballots only count in Missouri if the named person has filed with the Secretary of State's office prior to 5:00 p.m. on the second Friday immediately preceding the election day. Votes for write-in candidates who haven't jumped through the hoops don't even get counted.

So, sadly, writing "Martin Sheen" in for president won't get us President Bartlett.

Looking Down Ballot - Proposition C - Renewable Energy

Proposition C is not only a forward-thinking, inexpensive step in the right direction for Missouri, it is also a wonderful Rorschach ink blot test to uncover fundamental attitudes about the intersection of Government and the Free Market. Absolutists see Proposition C as a scary monster out to devour the Free Market, while realists see it as something positive and helpful.

Here is the language of the measure (and, while I'm at it, here is the link to the Kansas City sample ballot):

Shall Missouri law be amended to require investor-owned electric utilities to generate or purchase electricity from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, biomass and hydropower with the renewable energy sources equaling at least 2% of retail sales by 2011 increasing incrementally to at least 15% by 2021, including at least 2% from solar energy; and restricting to no more than 1% any rate increase to consumers for this renewable energy?

The estimated direct cost to state governmental entities is $395,183. It is estimated there are no direct costs or savings to local governmental entities. However, indirect costs may be incurred by state and local governmental entities if the proposal results in increased electricity retail rates.

The question that voters ought to be pondering is whether we are "in" or "out" on breaking our dependence on fossil fuels. I believe now is the time to move forward and seize for Missouri some of the economic, ecological and societal benefits of renewable energy.

The arguments against helping Missouri take a leadership position in the new economy is that it represents an expensive and unjustified intrusion on the Free Market. If alternative energy is a viable option, they argue, the market will recognize and exploit that fact, and utility companies will move toward renewable energy on their own.

Those arguments, based on the fundamental immorality of Libertarianism, ignore the reality of the marketplace in the 21st Century. While it is nice to sit back and dream of the day when enlightened utility companies will embrace new technology, there are two main reasons they never will, and why we need Proposition C to help our state economy.

First, the marketplace is fundamentally conservative, and requires encouragement to adjust its approach on energy. The utility industry is simply not a nimble industry, and never will become one without encouragement. Billions of dollars in "sunk costs" have bound the industry to centralized production and fossil fuels. If I owned a fantastically expensive power plant that burned coal, I, too, would resent a movement toward wind energy, which could reduce the relative advantage I have in the marketplace for electricity. Just as wise saddlemakers and livery stables opposed governmental involvement in paving roads for those unproven cars, utility owners are fighting a rearguard battle against a shift toward renewable energies. Their self-interest does not reflect what is best for Missouri.

Second, Missourians are justified in this enhancement of the free market because the utility industry has so many hidden societal costs. In ways we never really stop to consider, we have been subsidizing fossil-based utilities since their birth. When a coal plant emits "acceptable levels" of pollution, Missourians are subsidizing the profits of the owner by absorbing that pollution. Similarly, when the Missouri National Guard sends troops to Iraq, we are subsidizing our dependence on fossil fuels. (I won't argue whether the Iraq War is a war for oil, but I will insist that our involvement in the Middle East is largely motivated by the region's petroleum.) On the positive side, we demand that our utilities provide us with energy, even after an ice storm, when it might be more economically efficient to wait until spring to repair the lines. The "free market" is a myth in the heavily-regulated and high-social-cost realm of power generation.

Proposition C represents an opportunity for Missouri, and one we should support enthusiastically. In demanding a move toward renewable energy, Missourians will be getting out in front of and supporting the next wave of industrial change. We will be helping the market work for us instead of against us by encouraging innovation and new thinking. If the beneficent boards of our utility companies really had Missouri's interest at heart instead of their own, we would have moved this way generations ago. They, of course, do not have our best interest at heart, so this Proposition C will serve to make our voices heard.

Vote for Proposition C so that Missouri can be at the front of the next industrial revolution.

Stop Talking About Republican Flag-Desecration Scandal

Some of my fellow liberal bloggers have seized upon the documented fact that a huge American flag was dragged across the ground by the McCain campaign. They have even provided this video of the atrocity, which ought to make "real" Americans angry, especially here in Missouri, because Missouri is where they chose to demonstrate their disregard and disdain for America.
It bothers me to even post the video.

Despite my strong patriotism, I am calling on my fellow liberal bloggers to cease discussion of the Republican flag-desecration scandal. While it provides a vivid example of how the Republicans have a penchant for false patriotism, and how little respect they really have for patriotism after it has served their self-interest, I think that we should be better than that.

We should remember that not all Republicans are flag-tramplers. In fact, even in this case, we have no evidence that John McCain personally approved of the flag-dragging. I doubt that he personally approved or ordered the flag-desecration, because he has been terribly busy planning attacks on Obama's patriotism, and on the patriotism of those who support him. When Governor Palin claimed that "real Americans" are supporting her ticket, and "anti-Americans" are supporting Obama, I'm willing to bet that she was not even thinking about her next opportunity to drag the American flag across the ground.

Some might point out that the McCain campaign deserves to be criticized for this Republican Flag-Desecration Scandal, because they attempted to create and exploit a false flag desecration scandal earlier in the campaign in an attempt to damage Obama. To that I say, let bygones be bygones, and let's just ignore the Republican Flag-Desecration Scandal That Happened Right Here In Missouri!!

Why do I think we should ignore the Republican Flag-Desecration Scandal That Happened Right Here In Missouri? Because this campaign ought to be about the issues, not about the Republican Flag-Desecration Scandal That Happened Right Here In Missouri. Personally, I would rather talk about Health Care Policy and Foreign Policy and the Economy than the Republican Flag-Desecration Scandal That Happened Right Here In Missouri.

We also must remember that after November 4, we will need to work with the Republicans across the aisle, whether they were part of the Republican Flag-Desecration Scandal That Happened Right Here In Missouri, or not. So, please, fellow liberal bloggers, let's stop talking about the Republican Flag-Desecration Scandal That Happened Right Here In Missouri.

Okay? I don't want to see this video ever again.

Looking Down Ballot - Proposition B - Better Home Health Care For Missourians

Proposition B, on first glance, looks like a good idea. But when you take a more careful, analytical look at it, you realize that it's a great idea.

Here is the language that will appear on your ballot in less than two weeks:

Shall Missouri law be amended to enable the elderly and Missourians with disabilities to continue living independently in their homes by creating the Missouri Quality Homecare Council to ensure the availability of quality home care services under the Medicaid program by recruiting, training, and stabilizing the home care workforce?

The exact cost of the proposal to state governmental entities is unknown, but is estimated to exceed $510,560 annually. Additional costs for training are possible. Matching federal funds, if available, could reduce state costs. It is estimated there would be no costs or savings to local governmental entities.

While I often get accused of being verbose, even I see no need to expound on the merits of helping people live independently in their homes.

When I see a measure so obviously correct, I can't help but wonder if anybody is opposing it, and, if so, why? Thank Goodness I read Big Muddy Politics regularly, because that blog managed to find and destroy the anti-Proposition B argument. In a nutshell, the best that the Missouri Chamber of Commerce can come up with is the fear that the home health care workers might - gasp! - unionize, and that better home health care for Missourians could, possibly, cost a little more than bad home health care.

Believe me, I understand the differences of opinion concerning some unions, and a good-faith (but deeply flawed) argument could be made that some unions have created conditions that have led to off-shoring of manufacturing jobs, I am at a loss to explain why it would be a horrible thing to have a home health care work force that is well-trained and decently paid. Only a pathologically knee-jerk anti-worker reactionary could oppose increasing the qualifications, training and wages of one of the few groups of Missouri workers whose jobs are immune from being exported! (Though, to be fair, the Missouri Chamber's fantasy world probably would include herding retired blue-collar workers onto cargo ships to be exported to third-world countries if the lowered cost of care would reduce corporate pension obligations.) Incidentally, those same well-qualified, well-trained and decently paid home health care workers are the very same people who will be taking care of our grandparents, parents and even ourselves when we want to stay in our homes.

Vote "Yes" on Proposition B. It sounds like a good idea because it is a good idea.

Looking Down Ballot - Proposition A - No Loss Protection or Competition for Casinos

Vote No on Proposition A.

Kenny Hulshof and Jay Nixon agree that they do not want Proposition A to be law when one of them becomes Governor.

Proposition A is not about shiny apples and schools, no matter what its proponents try to portray. It is about money - huge amounts of money siphoned out of Missouri and into the pockets of out-of-state gambling interests. But jet-setting casino owners are a singularly unattractive lot, so they have dirtied our schools and children by drafting them into the battle as human shields for corporate greed.

Here is the language that will show up on your ballot two weeks from today:

Shall Missouri law be amended to:

repeal the current individual maximum loss limit for gambling;

prohibit any future loss limits;

require identification to enter the gambling area only if necessary to establish that an individual is at least 21 years old;

restrict the number of casinos to those already built or being built;

increase the casino gambling tax from 20% to 21%;

create a new specific education fund from gambling tax proceeds generated as a result of this measure called the “Schools First Elementary and Secondary Education Improvement Fund”; and

require annual audits of this new fund?

State governmental entities will receive an estimated $105.1 to $130.0 million annually for elementary and secondary education, and $5.0 to $7.0 million annually for higher education, early childhood development, veterans, and other programs. Local governmental entities receiving gambling boat tax and fee revenues will receive an
estimated $18.1 to $19.0 million annually.

In a nutshell, this provision would give existing casinos a license to sucker people to go "all in", protect them from competition (is this a great country or what?) and allow problem gamblers onto the floor all for a measly 1% tax increase.

Can Missourians be bought so cheaply? Even if Missourians are willing to whore themselves to the Las Vegas gambling interests, won't we salvage a shred of pride so that we're not cheap whores? At least not the cheapest in the neighborhood?

Does anybody else here remember when casinos were first sold to Missouri? Maybe old folks like me have begun to forget, but the discussion wasn't about casinos - we were all talking about "Riverboat Gambling". Nobody talked about garish neon monstrosities - we were promised old-fashioned steam ships cruising our scenic shores. Like many others, I voted in favor of the measure, with visions of playing a few games of poker while cruising up and down the river front. I'm a sucker for Mark Twain and sarsaparilla.

We were duped. Soon after the election, lo and behold, we learned that the riverboats wouldn't actually be riverboats, and that they would look like Times Square whorehouses instead of the Delta Queen. Suckers.

We were also told back then that our schools would benefit from massive infusions of money. Suckers.

We were told that the industry would not damage our communities. Suckers. Last year there were over 1600 crimes that were directly casino-related, not counting the sad crimes of desperation done by pathetic addicts hidden throughout out communities.

Finally, we were told that we would be protected by loss limits. Yes, that was a part of the campaign, and an earnest promise made by the same out-of-state gambling interests when they were trying to talk themselves into our state. Now, they want to free themselves of their obligations. They want to be free to encourage compulsive gamblers to go "all in' with their life savings, and their children's futures, and they want to be able to turn a blind eye when criminals invade the casino floors.

But they want to talk about shiny apples and schools.

How stupid do they think we are?

Vote No on Proposition A.

Brewing at 75th Street!

Friday was my opportunity to show up at 75th Street and recreate my little homebrew recipe on a grand scale - 200+ gallons of a strong Belgian specialty ale. It should be ready in approximately a month - I will certainly notify readers of this blog when it is available.

The recipe that won the 75th Street Homebrew contest was my attempt at playing with some of the Belgian guidelines. Belgians make the best beer in the world, and they are ceaselessly creative. Inspired by a book I read on Belgian brewing (Brew Like a Monk), I had set out to create a beer that resembled a Belgian Tripel in terms of color and strength, but which retained a flavor of honey. Belgians often use sugars in their stronger beers, to avoid the thick mouthfeel of an all-malt beer of similar strength. While a great doppelbock will feel thick and viscous in your mouth (like drinking a loaf of bread), a great tripel will be more drinkable - the Belgians use a term translating to "digestibility". When i brewed it, it came out a little darker than intended, but it was an easy-to-drink strong ale with a honey aftertaste).

In scaling up the brew to the larger equipment at 75th Street, I worked with Nick and Chris (their two brewers) to come up with a recipe including a quarter ton of malted barley, 25 pounds of honey, and 50 pounds of dark brown sugar. We used their normal hops (hop flavor and aroma are not a big feature of this beer). Here is a picture of the crushed malt and water being added to the mash tun, where the starches in the malt convert into sugar.

After the sugar conversion was complete, we recirculated the resulting liquid (wort) until it ran clear, using a pump to draw it from the bottom of the tank and putting it into the top of the tank. The malt husks act as a natural filter, to eliminate stuff that would cloud the beer. After it ran clear, we pumped it over to the brew kettle, and added water which had rinsed through the grain, absorbing all that malty sugar.

The brew kettle is steam heated, and brought the wort up to a good boil. We added pelletized hops to bring an appropriate level of bitterness to keep the beer from being too sweet. Balance is the goal.

Not long before the boil was finished, we added the honey and the brown sugar to the kettle. The late addition was an improvement on my recipe by the brewers at 75th Street - I had added my sugars at the beginning of the boil, but they wisely pointed out that the earlier addition would allow the flavor compounds in the sugars to be boiled away, and that the increased sugar in the boiling kettle throughout the 90 minute boil would increase the darkening of the wort through caramelization.

After the boil was done, we ran the beer through a heat exchanger to cool it, and pumped it into a waiting tank that already had the 75th Street house strain of Belgian yeast waiting for it. I dropped by the brewery on Saturday, and it was fermenting away, as it will for a couple weeks, after which it will condition (mellow) for a couple weeks before being served.

After the brew kettle had finished its work, the brewers outfitted me with a pair of rubber gloves, a pail of cleaning solution and a green scrubbing pad, and directed me on how to climb in through the hatch of the brew kettle to scrub it out. I truly thought they were joking, as the hatch did not look particularly big, and some of the other vessels are cleaned through chemicals and soaking rather than elbow grease. So, I kind of laughed it off, until I realized that they weren't just hazing the homebrewer. The next time you go into 75th Street, check out the hatch and you'll understand what a feat of gymnastics and force it was to jam myself into the kettle.

It was a great day - commercial brewing is similar in most ways to homebrewing in terms of process, but the quantities and techniques are more sophisticated. My trusty tin pan won't get the job done in transferring water to soak through the grain - pumps are used for everything.

But, as always, the real work of brewing is not done by machines or humans. As I write this, tiny yeast cells are chomping away at the sugars in the wort we created, creating alcohol and CO2. In a few weeks, we'll put it on tap and serve it up. I hope and believe it will be a great beer, but we won't really know until it's ready to drink.

Star on Amendment 4 - Conspiracy or Breakdown?

The Kansas City Star came out today with an endorsement of Missouri Constitutional Amendment #4. I suspected the endorsement was on its way when the Star's Prime Buzz avoided linking to my analysis of the giveaway to real estate and heavy construction. While I wouldn't even want to hint at a sense of entitlement to a link from another blog, the "Blog Watch" feature of the Prime Buzz is fairly generous in linking to political analysis in other blogs.

The Powers That Be seem to have decided that the less voters know about Amendment #4, the better, and it appears that the Kansas City Star has decided to sit back and allow that to happen. In three short paragraphs regarding Amendment #4, the Star manages to deliver a falsehood and a misdirection. Here, in it's entirety, is the complete coverage provided by the Kansas City Star on Amendment #4 during this entire election cycle:

The state deserves more leeway in how it uses tax-exempt bonds approved by voters 10 years ago for stormwater projects across Missouri, including in Kansas City.

The state wants to offer more loans, which have to be repaid by local utilities, and fewer grants, which don’t have to be repaid.

The change should lead to quicker access to the stormwater funds, allowing faster improvements. And it would not increase state taxes.

Paragraph 2 is a lie, and paragraph 3 is completely misleading.

While the Star claims that the Amendment will provide for more loans, the exact opposite is true. Quoting from the summary of the enabling legislation, "Currently, the Department of Natural Resources is required to provide both grants and loans using the funds resulting from the issuance of storm water control bonds, with 50% of the funding to be used for grants and 50% for loans. This amendment removes the percentage requirements as well as the requirement that both forms of financial assistance must be offered together. Additionally, the amendment removes the requirement that grants are limited to 50% of the cost of a storm water control project." I cannot explain how the Star managed to make such a wild misstatement, but it is one they should trouble themselves to correct. Whether it was from lack of research, complete misunderstanding, or they were bamboozled in one of their too-frequent editorial meetings with real estate developers and heavy construction leaders, they owe the public a correction.

As for the claim that the Amendment will not increase taxes, that's true only in the most technical sense. It does not increase taxes, but it eases the process for spending tax dollars, and allows more of them to be spent. To me, that is a whole lot like raising taxes. Denying that it raises taxes is kind of like saying that dynamiting a levee does not flood the land behind it. This Amendment "merely" blows a hole in the taxpayer protections that currently exist.

Furthermore, the Amendment goes further and diverts loan repayments away from taxpayers, so it will not be available to fund educational and medical needs of citizens, instead of fiscal needs of heavy construction and real estate developers. While that is technically not a tax increase, it will reduce tax revenue.

The Star has failed to provide news coverage regarding Amendment #4. Its brief editorial is 2/3 wrong. It is even refusing to link to sources that do provide strong analysis and thorough research. Is the Star part of a conspiracy of silence to keep voters ignorant, or did they simply have a complete breakdown in their research and analysis?

Sunday Poetry: Tin Wedding Whistle, by Ogden Nash

Tin Wedding Whistle, by Ogden Nash

Though you know it anyhow
Listen to me, darling, now,
Proving what I need not prove
How I know I love you, love.
Near and far, near and far,
I am happy where you are;
Likewise I have never larnt
How to be it where you aren't.
Far and wide, far and wide,
I can walk with you beside;
Furthermore, I tell you what,
I sit and sulk where you are not.
Visitors remark my frown
Where you're upstairs and I am down,
Yes, and I'm afraid I pout
When I'm indoors and you are out;
But how contentedly I view
Any room containing you.
In fact I care not where you be,
Just as long as it's with me.
In all your absences I glimpse
Fire and flood and trolls and imps.
Is your train a minute slothful?
I goad the stationmaster wrothful.
When with friends to bridge you drive
I never know if you're alive,
And when you linger late in shops
I long to telephone the cops.
Yet how worth the waiting for,
To see you coming through the door.
Somehow, I can be complacent
Never but with you adjacent.
Near and far, near and far,
I am happy where you are;
Likewise I have never larnt
How to be it where you aren't.
Then grudge me not my fond endeavor,
To hold you in my sight forever;
Let none, not even you, disparage
Such a valid reason for a marriage.
_________________________________________

Poetry tends to be serious stuff. But not always.

Tin Wedding Whistle is one of my old favorites, and one I used in courting my wife. Back in college days, when circumstance kept us apart for entire seasons, I would send her long, earnest letters, leavened with Ogden Nash's whimsical verse. If you liked this one, go here for a selection of over a hundred poems reflecting Ogden Nash's skewed, creative and comfortable way with words and subjects.

But, the pipe-smoking English professor asks, is it really poetry? Does it belong to the same family as Shakespeare or Eliot or Sir Gawain and the Green Knight? Is it Art, or amusement? Does something so light deserve to be taken seriously? Isn't it really like comparing a cartoon to the Mona Lisa? Isn't it like comparing a Precious Moments figurine to Pieta?

This English Major believes that Ogden Nash's poetry does deserve to be appreciated and studied at the same level as the other great works of poetry. Nash's poetry plays with traditional rhythms and uses them to ricochet reader's expectations. A sing-songy couplet is followed by a jarringly arhythmic line to snap the reader to attention, then soothed back to metric regularity:

And when you linger late in shops
I long to telephone the cops.
Yet how worth the waiting for,
To see you coming through the door.

Similarly, his choice of words is a vocabulary percussion - typically "poetic" words like complacent, "fond endeavor", "linger late" clack against words like cops and larnt. Both are richer for the experience.

A tweedy professor, however, would point out the things that Ogden Nash lacks, and I'll admit that the Professor has a point. Nash is not particularly ambiguous, or even subtle, in his subject matter. You don't read the above poem and ponder whether a more careful reading will reveal that Nash's heart longs to break free of his lover, or whether the relationship is secretly abusive. No nuance leads the mind to puzzle over hidden meanings or layered levels of understanding.

It is what it is. The author wants to marry the object of his joy.

So, if you're a literary snob, I suppose I can forgive you for rolling your eyes at my love of Ogden Nash. But I'd have to ask you whether Gertrude Stein aimed any higher, or whether a poem that nobody reads accomplishes anything at all. At the very least, you must admit that Ogden Nash is a gateway drug for other poetry - people lured in by Nash's word play and rhythmic tricks may continue on to enjoy Gerard Manley Hopkins or William Carlos Williams.

And if that's not good enough for you, well, okay. I'll continue to enjoy a poet who helped me woo my wife, and I suspect that is more than those who prefer Dover Beach can claim for Matthew Arnold.

Free Advice on Backing Up Your Computer

If you go through the headache of investing in an external hard drive and getting back up capability, you might as well go ahead and back up a little more often than I did. It's mildly frustrating to fire up the external hard drive and see that your last back up was done in '06.

Just sayin' . . .

Clint Zweifel and Brad Lager - People versus Powerbrokers

The Campaign Finance Reports filed by Clint Zweifel and Brad Lager provide a fascinating view into the role of money in the race. Brad Lager's report shows 9 heavy-hitters providing over half of his funds, while Clint Zweifel's report shows almost double the number of donations as Lager. Fortunately for Zweifel, his massive popularity propelled him to a victory in total dollars, as well as donors.

I've met Clint Zweifel and he's going to be a great treasurer.

As for Brad Lager, I formed my opinion of him back in 2006, and nothing I've seen since has changed it.

Kansas City Sports Team in the Running

With the Chiefs crumbling and the Royals at home watching their superiors enjoy the playoffs, it sometimes slips the mind that Kansas City does have one of the best soccer teams in the United States. The Wizards are playing the San Jose Earthquake on Saturday evening at CommunityAmerica Ballpark, starting at 7, in a game with HUGE (but confusing) playoff implications.

To sweeten the deal, it's also fan appreciation night. That means fireworks, baby!

You have to appreciate a team which has its own blog, especially when the blog is so earnest and straightforward that it eschews "Touch My Monkey" humor while posting this picture. Such high levels of dignity are refreshing here on the internet.

Another Brew Day

Is anybody interested in learning how to create beer out of malted barley, water, yeast and hops? Is anybody interested in spending a few hours drinking beer and playing with propane fires? If you are, email me (dan@gonemild.com) and block out Saturday morning/early afternoon, November 1, on your calendar.

If you want to know what's involved before you dash off an email, here's my description of the process.

I haven't decided what to make - a recent hard drive crash erased most of my brewing records, so I'll be creating something new. Maybe, since it is the Saturday before the election, I'll brew ObamAle - something a little darker, a little stronger, and a whole lot better than what America has been served for the past 8 years.

Brew Day!

Regular readers will recall that I won the 75th Street Homebrew Contest back in August. The victory brought with it the opportunity to participate in scaling up my 10 gallon recipe to their 200+ gallon equipment, and spending the day working in a professional brewhouse. Well, today's the day, and I'm looking forward to playing in the big leagues.

For those of you eager to try my recipe, you'll have to wait about a month. It should be ready in mid-November. If the recipe comes out as tasty and complex as we hope, the brewers dangled the possibility of aging some of it in their oak whiskey barrels, so it would have a second release in December. I'm trying not to get my hopes up, but that would be the coolest thing ever.

So, while you are grinding away today at your work stations, I will be immersed in the world of hops and barley . . .

Congratulations, Judge Zel Fischer

The Missouri Plan worked again yesterday, as Governor Matt Blunt chose one of three well-qualified candidates as his final appointment to the Missouri Supreme Court. Judge Fischer has served on the bench in Atchison County since 2006, after having served his community in a solo law shop for years.

I've known Judge Fischer for years, and he is going to be a fine member of the Supreme Court. I say that despite the fact that he and I are worlds apart in politics. Zel and I worked together on the Missouri Bar Young Lawyers Section, which gave us plenty of opportunity to sit around in the evening and discuss our views on various issues (as well as share a few laughs). Suffice it to say that we saw things differently. Despite the disagreements, though, we shared a respect for the judicial system and its role in society.

It says something positive about Zel and his approach to conflict that I was always enthusiastically invited up to Rock Port for a round of golf and a good steak. We were never going to be best of friends, but he was open-minded enough to invite this city liberal up for a good time. I wish I had taken him up on the offer.

Zel Fischer is a true conservative and a good man. While I suppose I could complain that the Supreme Court seat should go to someone closer to my own political philosophy, I respect the fact that Governor Blunt gets to pick the judges. Besides, political affiliation matters much less to me for a Supreme Court judge than does quality of mind and fidelity to the job of applying law to the facts of the case in front of the Court.

Congratulations to Judge Zel Fischer. Congratulations to Governor Matt Blunt - you got yourself a true conservative who will serve the Supreme Court long after you have left office. Congratulations to the Supreme Court nominating committee - you sent the Governor a panel with three excellent choices.

Most of all, though, congratulations to Missouri - you have once again benefitted from the best system for judicial appointments in the United States - the Missouri Plan.

Snap Polls Stop Talking Heads

I have something good to say about polls this morning.

Normally, I dislike polls and poll-watching. Tracking Gallup and Rasmussen is like watching the scoreboard at a football game, instead of the action in front of you. Worse, it's like watching multiple scoreboards at a game, with each scoreboard purporting to report on the same action, but each reporting different scores. They swagger into the room full of concrete factuality and then change shape overnight. They are untrustworthy and distracting.

But polls are not half as untrustworthy and distracting as post-debate spinmeisters on television. Nothing on earth could shake these determined partisans from declaring their favored candidate as the winner. If one candidate had soiled himself and admitted that he tortures kittens, these scurrilous asses would soberly intone that it was a great moment, and that it was a brilliant outreach to American dog lovers. The first 15 minutes of coverage after a debate are a stomach-churning display of lying scumbags willing to say absolutely anything to make it seem like their candidate won.

Snap polls, though, are changing the role of post-debate spin, and that's a good thing. In past years, the partisans who spoke loudest and most enthusiastically in the locker rooms were declared the winners. 8 short years ago, Gore was declared the loser of a debate that surveys showed he had won, all because the Republican spinmeisters did a masterful job of arguing that the American people were more concerned with sighs than substance. The day of the snap poll, with results charting average voters' instant reactions to the debate available within minutes of the debate's close, had not yet arrived.

Snap polls are the silver lining to the cloud of election polls. They actually stand for something, because they measure a real reaction to a real phenomenon. Election polls, on the other hand, are pitched differently - they are presented as a preview of the final election, when, in fact, they are snapshots of a single moment.

In the face of a snap poll, talking heads are reined in. It doesn't do any good to claim that my candidate dominated the debate if we're going to hear a few minutes later that the polls reflect the opposite. During those 15 or so minutes, the spinmeisters are exposed as what they truly are - shills filling time.

Sadly, the shills don't even seem to realize how marginalized they are, and how out-of-step they are with America. Nothing I could dream up to illustrate my point could rival this reaction posted on the National Review's website last night, by somebody who is actually paid for her opinions:

"I Just Don't Get
any of the insta polls, which seem to give it to Obama."

Indeed you don't Kathryn, and indeed they do.

Looking Down Ballot - Missouri Constitutional Amendment #4 - Stormwater Changes

Constitutional Amendment #4 is a classic "down ballot" item. It's confusing, with no practical impact apparent to the average voter, and nobody is going to talk about it before the election. Nobody is spending money to oppose it, and the people who stand to profit from it are smart enough to lay low and not draw any attention. No billboards on I-70 will be exhorting citizens to oppose or support Constitutional Amendment #4. So it provides me with a rare opportunity to be the sole voice in opposition to a statewide issue, and I'm cantankerous enough to take it.

VOTE "NO" ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT #4.

Here's the language that will appear on your ballot:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to change provisions relating to the
financing of stormwater control projects by:

limiting availability of grants and loans to public water and
sewer districts only;

removing the cap on available funding and existing restrictions on
disbursements;

requiring loan repayments to be used only for stormwater control projects?

It is estimated the cost to state governmental entities is $0 to $236,000 annually.
It is estimated state governmental entities will save approximately $7,500 for each bond
issuance. It is estimated local governmental entities participating in this program may
experience savings, however the amount is unknown.

Here's a more informative piece about the enabling legislation. 99 out of 100 voters will read this language and vote "yes" or "no" without understanding what in the heck it is really about. Because we're polite, docile voters who assume that measures like these are about helping to build necessary storm sewers, 56 of those voters will vote "yes", and the wealthy real estate interests and heavy construction companies will toast our ignorance with fine champagne.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT #4 WILL TRANSFER MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF YOUR TAX DOLLARS TO SUPER-WEALTHY SPECIAL INTERESTS.

A few weeks ago, I did a post that included a mention of how Kansas City is controlled by "dirt and concrete" - the twin interests of heavy construction and holders of prime real estate. It should come as no surprise that the same interests of dirt and concrete control much of what happens in Jefferson City, too. Constitutional Amendment #4 will enable millions of tax dollars - money that will not go to support education or children who need healthcare - to be spent on storm water projects designed to enhance property values of favored interests and generate millions of dollars in revenue for the heavy construction companies that will install those storm sewers.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT #4 MISLEADS THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AT STAKE.

Alert readers will note that my claim that millions of dollars will be transferred is controverted by the very language that will appear on the ballot. Gone Mild claims that millions are at stake, while the ballot language pegs it at a measly few hundred thousands of dollars.

Who is right? Gone Mild, of course.

The figure included on the ballot is only the amount of money that will go to hire a few people to shovel the real money to the interests of dirt and concrete. The millions of dollars that will get transferred will come from other appropriations, so they don't get counted. It's kind of like if someone gives you the keys to a vault full of gold, and you claim that they only gave you a $3 key.

In this case, that key opens the door to about $150 million in tax dollars that got approved a decade ago, but hasn't yet found its way to the people that lust for it. Tax law changes are part of the reason, but this Amendment goes beyond making a few technical changes in tax laws. In fact, it abolishes the requirement approved by the voters that half the give-away be in the form of loans. It also eliminates a $20 million cap on the size of the projects we taxpayers will be paying for.

PASSAGE OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT #4 WILL SUPPORT VOTER DISENGAGEMENT.

The reason you don't know more about Amendment #4 is not because you're stupid. It's because the powers that be expect you to docilely support a multi-million dollar giveaway without bothering to provide you with justification or even explanation. In fact, they are probably right. I expect that this Amendment will pass, because Missourians have lost touch with their "Show me" attitude, and will assume that something like this wouldn't have made it to the ballot if it weren't a good idea. In a climate where the interests of dirt and concrete can fleece the public for $150 million dollars without even undertaking a massive PR campaign to explain why, ignorant voters are a useful tool. As long as we go along with misleading down ballot measures and can be relied on to pass them without demanding to know what they are, we will continue to be surprised by finding provisions like this one coiled and hissing in the middle pages of our ballots.

Looking Down Ballot - Missouri Constitutional Amendment #1 - English Only

As promised last week, I'll be offering my opinions on the various measures that show up "down ballot" from the big Presidential and Gubernatorial races. Here is a sample ballot for Kansas City voters, and a new voter expecting to show up and cast a vote for Obama might be surprised to see page after page of judges, candidates, amendments and propositions. (If you live outside of Kansas City, it should be fairly simple to google your local election board and find a sample ballot online.) A little preparation can help you vote wisely in these important, but less publicized electoral offerings.

Constitutional Amendment #1 is a prime example of the danger of unprepared voting.

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to add a statement that English shall be the language of all governmental meetings at which any public business is discussed, decided, or public policy is formulated whether conducted in person or by communication equipment including conference calls, video conferences, or Internet chat or message board?

An off-the-cuff review of this proposal might leave a voter thinking that this is a reasonable step which could prevent our public meetings from turning into cacophonous, confusing messes. An unprepared voter could fail to see just how bad this Amendment is.

VOTE "NO" ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT #1.

It is tempting to do a little armchair psychoanalysis of why this has been put on our ballot, and speculate about wedge issues and xenophobia and the creation of fear of differences, but that is heated territory that will deepen the very divide I would prefer to bridge. Instead, I will focus not on the motivations of its proponents, but on the practical effect of this Constitutional Amendment.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT #1 WOULD WEAKEN OUR ABILITY TO GOVERN EFFECTIVELY.

Quite simply, Amendment #1 handcuffs government in dealing with its citizens. It is simply a fact of life that some groups of people in Missouri are more adept at languages other than English. This has been a fact here in Missouri since the beginning of human population, as the Illini, Osage and other tribes shared Missouri, through the French settlements that continued speaking French long after the Louisiana Purchase, through the quaint German communities along the Missouri, and continuing now as groups of Hispanic, Vietnamese and Sudanese immigrants form distinct communities in our urban areas. Missouri has never, ever, been a mono-lingual state, and yet it has never, ever felt the need to enshrine English as our official language.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT #1 IS DANGEROUS TO OUR SAFETY.

To be effective, particularly in times of emergency, a government must communicate quickly and effectively with its citizens. Amendment #1 would prevent government from holding meetings in languages other than English. If the police want to hold a public meeting to discuss a rise in gang activity in a non-english speaking community, it would be illegal for them to conduct it in the language of the people who would be most helpful and knowledgeable. If a public health crisis were to emerge within a non-english speaking community (perhaps a virus or tainted food), the government would be specifically prohibited from holding a meeting, conference call or even an internet chat board to discuss the problem in the language of the impacted population.

Why would we want to prevent our government from communicating in the most effective method for the specific purpose?

What would happen if an immigrant from Bosnia or Georgia or the Sudan or Guatemala showed up with a rare strain of influenza, threatening a repeat of the great Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918? Do we really want to prevent our government from communicating with a specific population on how to prevent its transmission, or even how to comply with a quarantine?

Again, why would we want to prevent our government from communicating in the most effective method for the specific purpose?

Is anybody really concerned that the Hispanic hoards are going to take over our government and we'll have to beg for our government queso? (Heck, they can't even get a seat on our school board, where they comprise a quarter of the constituency.) Does anyone mistakenly believe that this Amendment would prevent us from needing to scroll through the language choice screen at the ATM? (It won't.) Does anyone really believe that the new immigrants coming here for a bigger slice of the economic pie are going to fail to adopt the dominant language, just as the German, Polish, Italian, Russian, French, Chinese populations that preceded them?

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT #1 IS UNNECESSARY AND DANGEROUS.

VOTE "NO" ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT #1.

Living With Risk, Without BlogInsure

Never touch a child, even to give him or her a hug when he or she is happy.

Never mention a fellow employee's appearance, even to compliment him or her on a new outfit.

Never stop to help someone broken down on the side of the road.

Never venture east of State Line, or north of 435.

And never write a blog post that might anger somebody, because they might sue.

Life is full of risk, and all of the advice above has at least a tiny bit of conventional wisdom to back it up. If your goal in life is to avoid risk, you probably have accepted all of the above advice, and a good deal more.

Today's Kansas City Star has an article about BlogInsure for bloggers. For somewhere between $530 and $3,370, a local company will insure you for defamation and infringement cases, after a $2500 deductible. They'll make you take a free course in media law first.

The essence of the risk aversive justification for a product like this lies in a quotation I'll copy and link to here, fully aware that I could be accused of infringing on the Star's copyright by doing so:

“In fact, every time someone publishes anything online, whether it’s a news article, blog post, podcast, video or even a user comment, they open themselves up to potential legal liability,” David Ardia, a fellow at Harvard University’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society, wrote recently on Poynter Online.

How am I going to catch a wink of sleep tonight, while the risk of financial ruin is accompanying everything I do, both online and in the real world? Should I write a big check to Media Professional Insurance for BlogInsure? Should I shut this blog down, and live meekly in my insured home, with the shades drawn?

Truth is, there is no way to avoid all risk. If someone tells you that you shouldn't do something because "you could get sued", they may be offering sage advice, or they may be asking you to join in their fear-tinged worldview. Ultimately, you have to live your life according to your own risk/benefit analysis. For me, this blog represents an acceptable level of risk for the benefit of living out loud. And if you want to hug me and tell me I look great in my jeans - go ahead. I promise not to sue.

Computer Problems

My beloved computer isn't behaving very well. I'll be taking it to the Genius Bar at the Apple Store at 11:15. Wish me luck . . .

Sunday Poetry: my sweet old etcetera, by ee cummings

my sweet old etcetera
aunt lucy during the recent

war could and what
is more did tell you just
what everybody was fighting

for,
my sister

Isabel created hundreds
(and
hundreds)of socks not to
mention fleaproof earwarmers
etcetera wristers etcetera, my
mother hoped that

i would die etcetera
bravely of course my father used
to become hoarse talking about how it was
a privilege and if only he
could meanwhile my

self etcetera lay quietly
in the deep mud et

cetera
(dreaming,
et
cetera, of
Your smile
eyes knees and of your Etcetera)

__________________________________

ee cummings may have been the horniest dude ever to live. In this poem, he takes a poem about sacrifice and war, and turns it into a musing upon his lover's etcetera. Read in conjunction with many of his other poems, the picture emerges that ee cummings was as obsessed with copulation as a 15 year-old boy at the beach.

And why not? Lust is a shared experience across our culture - a drive that's as powerful and creative as murder and more insistent than higher aesthetic appreciation. It's universal, it's deeply personal, and it is one of the things that makes us human. It causes old men to act like fools, and young women to make disastrous mistakes. The object of lust is often tied up into our deepest emotional and psychic core, where shadows of first loves and first lessons inhabit shady freudian caves. In short, ee cummings isn't interested in writing about clouds or a babbling brook; he wants to grab your attention and make you share something with a soldier in a trench in World War I.

Yes, World War I. This poem dates back to 1926, and the war he's speaking of is the same one that was memorialized by "In Flanders Field" and Kansas City's Liberty Memorial. What we've come to think of as the Great War gets reduced in ee cummings' hands to a horny soldier in a trench thinking dirty thoughts while his sister knits socks and his mother is hoping he achieves a noble death. ee cummings writes about humanity as it really exists, and most of us reading the poem are able to understand exactly how that soldier feels in the deep mud thinking about his lover's knees.

Looking Down Ballot - Judicial Retention Elections

While almost everyone in the State of Missouri knows how they will vote in the "big" elections, many of us get thrown off our game when we get "down ballot". It's easy to know who you're voting for at the President and Governor level, but when you get down to some of the propositions and the judicial retention ballots, it's easy to find yourself resorting to guesswork.

This year, Jackson Countians will face a list of judges and a decision on whether or not to retain each of them. The judges are as follows:

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI
Patricia Breckenridge

16TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT (JACKSON COUNTY)
CIRCUIT JUDGES
Michael W. Manners
John R. O'Malley
Ann Mesle
Peggy Stevens McGraw
Kelly Moorhouse (Judge Moorhouse died earlier this week, but her name will be on the ballot. I'll be casting my vote for retention as a tiny tribute to a fine woman and a great public servant.)
John M. Torrence
Robert M. Schieber
Brian C. Wimes

ASSOCIATE CIRCUIT JUDGES
Robert Beaird
Vernon E. Scoville, III
Robert L. Trout

Unless you're a lawyer or a courthouse regular, you've probably never heard of most of these individuals. How should you vote?

Despite a wide variety in their backgrounds and experience levels, I encourage you strongly to vote in favor of each of these judges. The links on their names will direct you to the Missouri Bar's Judicial Evaluation of each of them, and they are an impressive lot. If you live in Missouri outside of Jackson County, you will have a different list of judges to vote for, and you can get those judicial evaluations, as well, at the Missouri Bar judicial evaluation website.

Even if you're going to simply take my advice and vote to retain each of the judges, I'd encourage you to take a few minutes and look at the evaluations. They will demonstrate to you just how well the Missouri Plan works.

The process is above traditional politics. By all rights under traditional politics, for example, I ought to be vigorously opposing Judge Breckenridge. She's a Republican - and she got her initial appointment from John Ashcroft, and her Supreme Court appointment from Matt Blunt. Those are the sort of credentials that ought to have a "yellow dog democrat" like me demanding to have her driven from office.

But she's a fine judge brought to us by a good process. People who know the law and the judges nominated her to be considered as one of three candidates for her position, based on her judicial temperament, legal ability and other factors aimed at picking great judges instead of great partisans. As a Missouri citizen, I sincerely do not care how Patricia Breckenridge the citizen votes when she casts her presidential ballot, but I care deeply that when she votes on cases in her job as Missouri Supreme Court judge, she does so on the facts and the law. As demonstrated by her outstanding scores in the evaluation process, a vast majority of Missouri lawyers, of all political persuasions, agree with me.

The same thing goes for all the other judges on this year's Jackson County ballot.

If you don't trust lawyers to evaluate the judges, though, I strongly encourage you to look at the juror evaluations. These are submitted by jurors (your peers) who have personally witnessed the judge in action. The scores are virtually unanimous that the judges listed have treated people equally and with dignity and were well prepared, etc.

I fully expect that each of the judges listed above will be retained by wide margins. Ironically, the opponents of the Missouri Plan will argue that those margins demonstrate that the voters aren't smart enough to be trusted to retain only the good ones. They are all good ones. The system is working. Go look at the thorough information available to you, and you can vote with complete confidence.

The Missouri Plan has given you an excellent set of judges. Retain them, and support politicians from either party who promise to retain the Missouri Plan.

The Cardinals and Ryan Adams Postponed

I was really looking forward to the show tonight.

They have the flu.

And their website claims "Tonights show in Kansas is postponed because multiple members of the band and crew have been taken ill with the flu. More details soon." It was going to be at the Uptown, most definitely in Missouri.

Not Everyone Under Water is Drowning - Why John McCain's Erratic Homeowner Bailout is Unnecessary

McCain's debate performance was stylistically stronger than I anticipated, but it was more troubling than I ever dreamed. One of the things that scares people about McCain is his tendency toward erratic behavior (erraticism?). At the debate, during a time of international financial turmoil and domestic near-panic, McCain announced a crazed new plan to throw money at people who have demonstrated their lack of financial acumen - he wants to buy the mortgages of houses that are "under water". If you have a mortgage with a value higher than the market price of your home today, John McCain wants to buy your mortgage from your bank and give you a new one with a reduced value.

It's this sort of erratic over-reaction that concerns me about John McCain. That's not maverick, that's manic.

For those of us who view houses as homes, and not commodities, the relative value of our mortgage to our home's market price is not a burning issue. If you're not selling and you're not buying, it doesn't matter if you're underwater. If you're not in the market, the short-term market price isn't really all that big a deal.

I don't really know what the market value of my house is today. I don't have a precise number for how much we owe on it, either. Why should I care? The real number I focus on is how much I need to pay every month for my mortgage - and that does not fluctuate according to the market place. Even if I had an adjustable rate mortgage (which I don't, because I realized what the A in ARM stands for), I wouldn't be focused on the value of my house, I would be focused on the cost of my mortgage. If I have enough current income to service my mortgage, I don't need to focus on my long-term capital value.

Those of us who own one home, and live in that home, can swim underwater quite happily for a long time - at least until we need to sell. I don't need lifeguard John McCain to bail me out with your tax dollars.

For most of us, our home is our most significant capital investment. As with any capital investment, we hope it appreciates, but cyclical changes in value are only unrealized gains and losses, unless we choose to sell.

While there may be some economic rationality in walking away from a mortgage that is going toward the purchase of a home with a mortgage value greater than its market value, the truth of the matter is that most of us are not going to do that if we still have current income to service our mortgage. That's just not how real families work.

For real families, a house is not an investment to walk away from while you have enough income to pay the mortgage. Our children sleep in the bedrooms. We cook in the kitchens, and relax in the living rooms. The sense of "home" and stability is more important than what an appraiser says my building is worth. Even if it weren't, the hassle of moving and potential destruction of my credit rating would keep me from walking out.

But John McCain wants to use tax dollars to bail me out, even if I don't realize that my market value may be less than my mortgage value.

Like so many issues in America, this is a hidden class battle. John McCain owns multiple houses, so he doesn't share the same concept of "home" that the rest of us do. He has a portfolio of houses - somewhere between 8 and 13 diversified units that he holds largely as tax-favored investments. For him, it does not make even a tiny bit of sense to pay a million dollar note on a house that is worth $990,000. To him, that's the same as paying yesterday's value on a stock that has dropped one percent - it is an economical irrationality, and a crisis that must be solved with taxpayer money.

For most normal Americans, the housing crisis will not be a crisis unless we start losing our jobs. John McCain's proposal to inject massive amounts of tax dollars into the mortgage industry is not designed to save jobs - it's designed to save capital. Real estate does not employ people.

The average American family does not even have an accurate, up-to-date valuation of its home. The crisis does not exist in the possible gap between mortgage value and market value - the gap that John McCain wants to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to address. The crisis exists only in the possible gap between mortgage cost and current income. John McCain's plan ignores that gap.

That's the gap keeping America awake at night worrying, John McCain. "That one."

Sebelius Dances Those Non-Veep Blues Away

As I wrote yesterday, this year's debates are becoming something of a hot social event, with parties and gatherings taking place all over. Of these, though, the biggest one was the sole vice-presidential debate, where we were treated to a blustery senator versus a talented Tina Fey impersonator. Who could miss that? Every politico I know was glued to the screen. Or so I thought.

It turns out that none other than veep shortlister Kathleen Sebelius avoided the debate. Instead, she went to Knuckleheads to catch some musical blues, where my favorite librarian blogger noticed her and even got her to pose for a picture. Sounds like it was a good show and it's probably wiser for her to get out and listen to Tab Benoit than to sit at home in the Governor's Mansion watching the debate and thinking about how it "woulda, coulda, shoulda" been her in Biden's place.

Jury Duty - Sebelius Leads by Example

Very few of us really look forward to a jury summons. Whatever season they arrive, it's a busy time at work. A jury summons thrusts irregularity into our schedule and our routine.

A lot of people look for excuses. "Can I get out of a jury summons?" is the most common cocktail party question faced by attorneys. Generally, the answer is "no", though, at least in Jackson County, you can fairly easily get one postponement for a good reason. But, after that, you need to serve. Only genuine hardship cases get out of it, and by hardship, I mean stuff like dying relatives and scheduled surgeries. Even then, a postponement is a more likely result.

Here's a filthy little secret - SOME politicians get out of jury duty. A phone call to a sympathetic judge who owes you a favor can, on occasion, convince the judge to give you a hardship waiver. I want to stress that 99% of the time, such a call will merely get you an embarrassed, awkward silence, followed by a suggestion that you call the jury supervisor and see what he or she has to say. Judges quite correctly take jury duty very seriously, so don't try it.

All that said, though, a Governor who formerly served as executive director of the state trial lawyers association and whose husband is a federal magistrate could easily dodge jury duty. A simple phone call to the right judge is all that it would take.

But, instead, Kathleen Sebelius showed up at the courthouse when she got her jury summons. A shining example of class and civic duty, she went through the same process as everyone else.

“I’d love to serve on a jury. I’ve never had that opportunity,” Sebelius before entering the courthouse. “I think it’s important that everybody take that civic responsibility.”

Kudos to the Governor - she took the opportunity to provide an example of how citizens ought to respond to their civic duty. As it turns out, she was excused from the panel because she knew the plaintiff's attorney, but they also serve who show up without complaining.

Debate Parties

Tonight, as on the evenings of prior 2008 debates, I'll be joining friends clustered around a television set to watch the debate between President-elect Obama and Senator-Since-Before-Keating-Scandal McCain. It's kind of a funny phenomenon, but I've participated in and heard about more such parties this year than in prior years. For the home-bound, there's even a blogger chat-room to provide a sense of community, hosted with video by Kansas City's most awesome blogger.

It sucks to be a Republican right now. Most polls show McCain/Palin down by double digits, and the Dems have this overwhelming sense of community, anticipation and excitement that must really be annoying from the perspective on the lesser side of the aisle. Even hopes of some October surprise (what could it be? bin Laden surrendering to McCain personally?) are fading, as they realize that the real October surprise is going to be quarterly retirement account statements that count as campaign mailers for change.

I think tonight is going to be the best debate of the bunch. McCain, quite correctly, believes he needs to score big. He's abandoned the high road already, so look for him to start slinging mud, and look for him to finally summon the courage to look Obama in the eye when he does it. And look for Obama to respond calmly and firmly, triggering that famous McCain rage that is causing him facial spasms already. The only question is how ugly it will get.

Through it all, though, McCain will be somehow less than Obama - an attacker trying to bring down a bigger man. In the end, Obama will appear more presidential than McCain.

It will be good to see it all with friends. Somehow, seeing Obama wax Presidential while McCain wanes is something to be enjoyed with a sense of community, and celebration. Yes, we can.

Gone Mild - Still the Reigning Champ

The Kansas City media scene was shocked, simply shocked, last week when the Pitch issued its "Best of" awards, and there was no award for Best Political Blog. Last year, of course, the Pitch singled out Gone Mild as Kansas City's Best Political Blog. Similarly, my friend over at Happy in the Bag did not see a new award for Best Blog About Life, though he is still alive and still blogging.

It's pretty obvious that the Pitch has decided that Happy in the Bag and Gone Mild have established a lasting dominance in their fields - life and politics, respectively - and that Meesha's award for "Best Blogger" was really intended to be "Best Blogger about Stuff Other Than Politics or Life".

Congratulations, Meesha, and congratulations also to Happy in the Bag, who shares with me the honor of so dominating a category that they had to retire it.

The Real World Between Cynicism and Optimism

A couple weeks ago, I posted a piece suggesting that readers contact their congressional delegations to voice their opinions on the bail-out bill. First up in the comment section was Kansas City's Best Blogger and nonvoter Meesha, advising me with all his world-weary wisdom that "it will happen anyway".

Sure enough, it happened anyway.

So, was my call to action an exercise in futility? I don't think so, and neither do the millions of people who now will gain access to mental health coverage with their insurance. 24 million taxpayers will get relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax. A lot of changes were made to the bill, some of which were good, some of which were transparent gifts to special interests. The fact remains, though, that our calls got their attention, slowed down the train, and got us at least a more palatable bill.

Total victory? No. Total defeat? No, but dangerously close. Worth a few phone calls? Absolutely.