Funmurphys: the Blog

Kirkwood Aesthetics

The Post finally ran my letter to the editor on the Kirkwood City Council shootings. I'm assuming that you know about them, but I'll just mention that I'm third generation Kirkwood, even if I don't currently live there. A lot of the coverage now focuses on "the racial divide" in Kirkwood.

I keep hearing about this racial divide in Kirkwood and how Charles Thornton was treated differently because he was black. But can anyone point to actual evidence of this unfair treatment? Can they point to white business owners who have been allowed to park their heavy equipment on residential streets or dump their waste on vacant lots? For instance, I notice that Ray’s Tree Service stores their equipment on a parking lot, not on the city streets.

My father, Kirkwood High class of 1942.5, was the executor of an estate in Kirkwood about 25 years ago. After his second citation for letting the grass grow too high, he started to mow the lawn one evening after work. He was then cited for disturbing the peace despite his whiteness.

I can believe that Mr. Thornton never adjusted to the change from the unfettered days before Meacham Park became part of Kirkwood, but after the protracted fight over a parking lot for the Baptists or the latest brouhaha over the tearing down of an old house to put up a new one that sparked the bumper crop of red “Protect Historic Kirkwood” yard signs, anyone who seriously believes that race counts for more than aesthetics in Kirkwood doesn’t know Kirkwood.

As usual it was edited, but this time I think they went a little far. I understand they edit the letters. I can understand why they edit them. It's just that I'm not always happy with the edits. They removed "Can they point to white business owners who have been allowed to park their heavy equipment on residential streets or dump their waste on vacant lots? " which I think is pretty important.

I think it's important because I prefer to move away from the nebulous to the specific. No doubt people in Meachem Park, like almost anywhere else, can point to events and claim they are not treated fairly. I might even agree with them (amazingly enough, I too was once stopped for Driving while Black despite the fact that I, and all the car's occupants, were white). But a lot of the continuing response seeks to bridge a racial divide. I wish them all the best but I don't think the problem is racist in nature. It's not entirely classist, either And that's why it's important to find out the exact complaints, and not be satisfied with generic ones - because reality can hide in that nebulous cloud. But if the reality is flushed out into the open, then and only then can it be examined and addressed.

There is nothing wrong with the dialogue and probably something oddly thereputic in all the hand holding and avowals of love and solidarity, but at the end of all that you'll still have the majority in Kirkwood imposing its aesthetic values on the rest of the population.

Kirkwood is suffering from a clash of aesthetics and has for a long time. All the big fights for the last 30 years (or more, I can only speak personally to 30 years) have all been over aesthetics. Usually its couched in terms of the effect on neighborhoods and property values but the majority of Kirkwood wants to keep the city a place of high end residential properties (nothing wrong with that) and if that limits what you do with your property, so be it. And that's when the fighting begins - when you do something with your property that goes against the Kirkwood aesthetic. Tear down an old house to put up a new house - fine if the old house is one of the many old small ones and the new one fits in with the look and feel of Kirkwood. Tear down a charmer to put up a McMansion - Kirkwood explodes in red yard signs "Protect Historic Kirkwood". Tear down a house to put in a parking lot - don't even think about it Baptists.

Meachem Park has been thoroughly reconstructed since it's annexation from Kirkwood. Law and order, and all that that entails, has been provided. And if the order that is imposed doesn't conform to the locals desires, it does to the wider Kirkwood aesthetic. And no amount of jawboning about race, no amount of representation on the city council will change that.

2006 Missouri Ballot Measures

Cable news over the weekend focused on Missouri. Apparently, we're the United States in miniature here. One of the fun things about the Missouri constitution is that it can be amended by simple majority vote, so every year that goes by it less and less resembles a constitution - a statement of how government works -- and more and more it's just another part of the state legal code.

So here are the complete set of amendments and propositions for the entire state.

Amendment 2:
This is an excercise in public relations. It's being sold as a measure that would (1) ensure access to stem stell cures, and (2) outlaw cloning. What it really does is (and why Jack Danforth is so involved) ensure researchers at Washington University will be able to engage in embryonic stem cell research without any restrictions by the state of Missouri.

There are cures will be years down the road. Adult stem cells, which noboby has an objection to, already have cures. Now much is made of the potential of embryonic stem cells, but I'm old enough to remember how interferon was going to be a cure all, and even more recently how cancer was licked. So the idea that Missouri needs access to such cures right now is pure bushwa.

And that brings us to part 2, which is the so called ban on cloning. What supporters don't tell you is that reproductive cloning is baned, but somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning is constitutionally protected by the amendment. That runs counter to my desires - as I have said before, I'm fine with reproductive cloning, but I'm against creating embryos just so they can be destroyed. I don't appreciate the way the ads in support just come out and lie about this, and it's not like this is some oversight, but this is the real agenda of the amendment and the full text is quite careful to make sure that SCNT cloning is not outlawed - just reproductive cloning.

While I don't think this amendment will make much difference one way or another, I'm voting against it because (1) it is deliberately misleading, and (2) it doesn't belong in the constitution.

Amendment 3:
This is a tax on tobacco. I don't have a problem with raising taxes on tobacco, but why does it have to be a constitutional amendment, and why are we setting up the Healthy Future Fund? I'm voting against because it's legislation, and therefore doesn't belong in the constitution. Put it to me as a proposition, make it a straight tax to raise revenue, and you've got my vote. I'm getting tired of all the deception.

Amendment 6:
This amendment will create a tax exemption for real and personal property that is used or held for nonprofit purposes or activities of veterans’ organizations. I'm going to vote yes on this one.

Amendment 7:
This amendment is supposed to stop state pensions for statewide officeholding felons and change the rules about legislator compensation. OK, I'm voting for this one too. I'm all for not paying felons, and let's face it, the legislature is going to figure out a way to get more money one way or another, so I might as well just get it over with now.

Proposition B:
I'm against the whole minimum wage mentality that somehow it represents anything other than the rate of completely unskilled labor and should be set by anything other than market forces. I realize this is a popular measure, but I'd rather see improvements to Earned Income Credits and other forms of poverty relief that provide good incentives than intervention into the labor market, especially one like this that happens every year. In other words, I'm voting no.

Michael J Fox, Missouri, and Amendment 2

I didn't have a lot of reaction to Michael J Fox's ad for embryonic stem cell research and Claire McCaskill when I first saw it. Surprise, surprise, surprise, a political ad that doesn't tell the whole truth. Personally, I found it much more interesting that he pronounced Missouri as Missoura - the pronunciation used in the rural part of the state which means the ad was aimed more at conservative democratic voters and not the urban and suburban voters.

I don't get a lot of the complaints - Mr. Fox is entitled to his opinion, he's entitled to express it, and he's entitled to endorse politicians as he sees fit. If a politician or political group thought putting my mug on a TV ad would help persuade people to their position, you'd be seeing my mug on TV ads.

As far as playing up his disease, Parkinson's is a terrible disease. And for those of us (yes, me included) who are opposed to embryonic stem cell research, I think we owe it to sufferers to hear them out, to see how it affects them, and then to tell them the honest truth of our thoughts and they should hear us out. If you want my sympathy Michael, you already have it. But that doesn't mean that your suffering, or my suffering, outweighs all else.

Nobody is against adult stem cell research. Lot's of people are against embryonic stem cell research because they think as I do that you are destroying human life in the process, or something close enough that it's protection outweighs possible cures - especially when adult stem cells show much greater promise for real life cures. Why is it that supporters of embryonic stem cells won't come out and make that distinction? Given that is the reason that most of us who oppose ESCR actually oppose it, why make an emotional play that has nothing to do with our opposition? Is it because fundamentally you don't understand the opposition?

Last night I saw the other ad, this time with a mix of local and national celebrities, this time with a couple of St. Louis celebrities, Kurt Warner and Jeff Suppan. Was it wrong for them to speak out? While I think the Fox ad did a better job of presenting it's case, the rebuttal ad did a better job of addressing the actual Amendment 2.

The Politics Of Roads

The Missouri Department of Transportation is working on I-270 in West St. Louis County. They have ground off the top layer of concrete in the two lanes that still have concrete surfaces from Highway 40 (yes, I know it's officially I-64) to I-70. Normally I'm not one to complain about road work, but this time I am. To my untrained eye, there was nothing wrong with road surface on that stretch of I-270. I'm assuming (since there is nothing about the work on their website) that they will then resurface the whole highway, even though there are much worse stretches of pavement - like I-270 between I-70 and I-370, which they did a "micro" resurfacing to a few years back and which is in terrible shape.

I just wonder if it isn't just a way to spend money and maintain visibility in a part of the state that has a lot of affluent voters. And it only makes me dislike amendment 3 even more. MODOT tried a couple of times to get tax hikes for roads but they were voted down. So they hit on a different approach - they would ask the voters to stop the "diversion" of gas and license tax revenue to non-road related spending. MODOT told us we could get better roads "for free". I voted against it for the simple reason that it would mean cuts in other places that would be determined later and this time I agreed with the Sierra Club. In fact, Archpundit said that the amendment would turn victory in the governor's race into the booby prize because whoever became governor would be forced to make big cuts in spending.

So after some very unpopular cuts in state spending for which Gov. Blunt has taken a lot of heat, MODOT is spending money for no apparent reason. To all my fellow Missourians who voted yes on amendment 3, I hope you're satisfied.

Gerrymandering

Or how I learned to stop worrying and love the gerrymander.

Gerrymandering is universally unpopular with voters and popular with politicians. And Stuart Taylor puts the case against gerrymandering quite well:

"The one-person, one-vote decisions of the early 1960s have had the unintended consequence of enabling politicians to choose their voters rather than the other way around".

One of the complaints is that as we have more and more safe districts, we have highly polarized politics. But what about the other extreme? If we drew districts to maximize competitiveness, would we be happy if a party that had 48% of the electorate managed to win 100% of the seats -- which might happen in a smaller state with every district highly competitive. Would politics become focused even more on appearance, on sound bit, on the immediate tactical advantage on election day to the exclusion of good governance? So is the choice between polarized politics or representation that isn't representative?

The other alternative is to take gerrymandering to the other limit, so that districts would be all equally safe which would mean that the representation in the legislature would most closely reflect the party makeup of the electorate. That would achieve the global result of accurate representation of the electorate, but people would feel even less connected to the political process. Heck, we could avoid all the expense and controversy associated with general elections and just hold primaries.

And if you think that most people vote for the person and not the party (you of course never do that, free thinker that you are), then gerrymandering wouldn't work. What makes gerrymandering break down isn't our rugged individualism, but that over time we move around and thus change the relationship between party and location, and that there are slow shifts in the electorate between the parties.

I don't buy the theory that safer districts have led to more political strife. I think what we are seeing is a return to normal (although unpleasant) levels of political strife and incivility that after an abnormal period of consensus that was due to the experiences and outlook of my fathers generation - the one's who grew up during the depression, fought WWII, and came home with the ability and desire to get along to get things done -- and this change happens to correlate with more effective gerrymandering.

We could just select districts based on compactness and carve them up by computer without regard to their competitiveness, but then who knows what you'll get -- which is why politicians will never agree to such an approach. Would we be happy if such a scheme meant the dilution of minority votes, or inadvertantly made uncompetative districts that didn't represent the relative strengths of the parties? Would we then have to step in with some sort of neutral commision to adjust the boundaries so that the districts conformed to notions of fairness, as if that isn't a political judgement in itself?

Is there even a good answer on how to draw legislative districts in a two party system?

And don't even get me started on the problems with one man, one vote.

A Start But In the Wrong Direction

I admit I was shocked to read this article in my paper today: only about 20 percent of Missouri's school districts spend 65% or more of their money on student instruction. Wow. And none in St. Louis County. Missouri spends 60.97 percent on student instruction, the national average is 61.34 percent.

I have to agree with the comments made in this article:

Rep. Ed Robb, R-Columbia, said with all the funding disparities examined by the Special Committee on Education Funding last year, the wide range between what districts spend in the classroom was eye opening.

“When you think that more than one-third out of every dollar is going to overhead, I don’t think you could run a business that way, and I don’t think you can run a school that way,” he said.

Of course, that isn't the end all and be all of educational reform. I'd prefer to use vouchers to create a market in education which would mean you wouldn't need that kind of state mandate. All this demand for uniformity and micro-management would be out the window, although I assume we'd still have the never ending funding disputes.

Claire Is In

The big political news here in Missouri is that Claire McCaskill is running for the Senate against Jim Talent. Needless to say, there are different viewpoints on the matter: pro and con. I have to admit that I like both Talent and McCaskill, but I expect I'll be voting for Jim come election time. Hopefully Claire won't try to connect with rural voters by blazing away with a shotgun like Jean Carnahan - forcing Jim to tout how he likes to fish which then led to fishing-licence-gate one of the stupider so called scandals in Missouri. And hopefully Claire will pick a better color scheme than the one she used against Blunt. I find McCaskill a much stronger candidate than Jean Carnahan, but I don't know if my fellow Missourians agree with me. We did elect Matt Blunt, afterall.

All's Not Well

The smoking ban for St. Louis county failed this week when a council member changed her mind apparently because she thought the ban wasn't strict enough (I had a hard time digesting her remarks as reported in the paper). I am somewhat unhappy about the defeat. I guess I'll just have to start visiting fine scarfing establishments in Ballwin, which does have a public smoking ban.

No Smoking Please

Kurt Odenwald, who happens to be my rep on the St. Louis County Council, is pushing an ordanence to ban smoking in a lot of public places. Needless to say, not everybody's happy about it. I have somewhat mixed emotions about the ban, as I'm a limited government guy but a non-smoker who really can't stand tobacco smoke. So I keep asking myself would I be violating my principles by supporting such a ban.

My one bit of original reporting is that almost a year ago, while forced to sit in a smoking section to get a table in a restaurant, the owner apologized and said he wished the county would ban smoking in restaurants so that it would take the hassle out of it for him (he didn't seem too woried about people traveling outside the county to eat and smoke). So not all business owners are opposed.

On the one hand, I don't like the government telling the business owners what to do, although after all the hoops they already have to jump through, one more can't be that bad. Nor do I like government telling people when and where they can do things. On the other, smoke pretty much ruins my enjoyment of whatever I'm doing, whether that's eating, listening to a band outdoors, or watching fireworks. And as I'm confronted with less and less smoke as the years go by, the more sensative I become to it, so much so that someone smoking several blankets away from me on a no breeze July evening waiting for the fireworks to starts is quite noticable and causes me to breath shallowly. And smoke lingers - in clothes, in furnishings, in breath. I don't think I'm alone in this, so there is a clash between smokers and non-smokers with businesses and public events caught in the middle.

I know the ordinance is pitched at the claim that the workers need protection from all that second hand smoke, but if so why are there any exceptions? Am I morally lacking that I discount that claim and focus in on the public - smokers and non-smokers? Can I in good conscience ask the government to restrict people from doing what they enjoy to increase my enjoyment? If, as my libertarian friends assure me, the right to swing my fist around ends at the start of someone's nose, does someone's right to spread their smoke around end at the start of my nose as well?

I suppose in a more perfect world, we could all just get along and figure out how smokers and non-smokers could share the air without resorting to laws. Part of the problem is that while a non-smoking section next to a smoking section my be smoker free, it's not smoke free. I understand that government can't smooth out every bump, can't make my life nuisance (or worse) free, but I'm tired of tobacco smoke. Maybe I should put up with the occasional dose of tobacco smoke so that others can enjoy their smoke, but I'm tired of not being able to breath freely and enjoy a meal because somebody else has an addiction. So if you want to light up, go right ahead - on your own property. You can even leave the curtains open.

My Civic Duty

I voted this morning. I took the day off to have some brake work done, paint the kitchen, and go to the doctors. I managed to squeeze in voting this morning. All this talk of record turnout, of people parking on 141 in Fenton, and I just waltzed right in and punched my little card without delay. Only one vote came down to the wire for me - Blunt vs. McCaskill. Claire gave a great interview on local radio a while back, and I have to admit I was leaning towards voting for her. My wife warned me that while she might be good for the state now, she would probably win a race for senator in eight years and then all that talk about social issues not mattering would be out the window. Still, tomorrow is another day, and I'm worried about right now. But then, last night, Rudi Guilliani called me. Yep, the mayor of New York himself called me to ask for my vote for Matt Blunt, and he told me how important it was. Who am I to refuse Rudi? Sorry Claire, but I'm thinking you'll go on to victory even without my vote.

Missouri Elections

Since Archpundit inexplicably covers only one race in Missouri, I figured I'd take up the slack for the rest of the state.

First up is St. Louis County executive. I’m limiting the choices to the big three: Charlie Dooley (D), Gene McNary (R), and Kurt Odenwald (R). All three strike me as nice men who mean well, and in the interest of full disclosure I’ll point out that in the distant past I have been to Gene McNary’s house where I was supplied with free food and drink. But for me, the race is pretty simple. I can’t tell the difference between Charlie at the helm of state and Buzz when he was secretly in the hospital, only Buzz got a lot more attention. Gene’s platform, near as I can tell, is the county was great when I ran it 50 years ago, and it will be great if you just put me back in charge. And Kurt’s centerpiece is a “redevelopment fund.” In other words, this race just makes you want to jangle your keys and chant “boring.” But I know who I’m voting for. Both Charlie and Gene strike me as the kind of guys who never had to worry about their weight one day of their lives. So I’m voting for the stout guy, yep, short and plump Kurt is my man.

For governor, the field is crowded, but again the reality is that only three have a shot: Matt Blunt (R), Claire McCaskill (D), and Bob Holden (D) the incumbent otherwise known as “one term Bob” – even by Democrats. Bob has all the charisma of a dead mackeral, and Claire apparently can be bought for $10,000 and a case of beer. All Matt has to do is sit back, watch Bob and Claire claw each other's eyes out, run the same ads they're running against each other, and coast to victory. OK, maybe people will vote for Karen Dee Lee Skelton-Memhardt on the theory that's really two people, but I think people with hyphenated last names are at a disadvantage in Missouri.

Kit Bond is up for re-election as senator this year. In the interest of full disclosure, I have an aunt who claims to have been Kit's nanny a long, long time ago. Sensing blood in the water, the democrats are running everybody, but the favorite to win the primary is Nancy Farmer. I always confuse her for Jill Farmer, a blonde babe who was a local TV consumer reporter before she retired to raise a family and appear in TV commercials. Jill replaced Mandy Murphey as the consumer reporter for Fox 2, another blonde babe but one who I dislike for two reasons - Mandy had a perpetually big smile which got in the way of stories where a big smile wasn't called for, and she misspelled "Murphy" so now I'm constantly encountering her fans who want to stick an 'e' in Murphy. If enough people confuse Nancy with Jill, she has a shot. Otherwise, Missourians will vote their interest - no other senator is as entertaining as Kit Bond, and he is ruthless in looking out for our local interests, the rest of the country can go hang.

Jay Nixon should win as Attorney General again - he's done a fine job and with challengers with names like Dewey Crepeau I don't see much danger for him.

The race for state treasurer is crowded - both because the current governor used the office as a stepping stone and the incumbent is running for an office without term limits. I have no idea who'll win nominations in this race. State Senator Anita Yeckel complained in a letter to the editor at the Post today because they described her legislative record as lackluster (I wonder what they called Russ Carnahan's?) by pointing out her many accomplishments as a legislator. What she misses is that the Post editorial board only cares about guns (against), gays (for), abortion (for), and God (against). Since her legislation had to do with overhauling banking and small business regulation, stamping out Meth labs, and brownfield development -- important stuff but not what they care about -- her record is "lackluster." My favorite, Al "convicted felon" Hanson is running for treasure instead of auditor. He'll probably get my vote again, but since it wasn't enough for a victory last time, I doubt it will be enough this time.

I expect Todd Akin to cruise to victory in the 2nd district as Gephardt and Clay swiped a lot of Democratic voters from the district during the 2000 redistricting to keep themselves from falling below 60% in their elections.

And now we come to the third district where the scramble is on to fill Dick Gephardt's old slot. I don't think a Republican could win in the district (see above paragraph). So Steve Stoll is my man in this race. Archpundit loves Jeff Smith. Frankly, I'm not impressed. Here's a guy who teaches political science at Washington University and what are the quotes he gets in the paper -- "Bush is a complete moron" and "Somewhere a village in Texas is missing it's idiot" (which is a Molly Ivins line). Impressive analysis, Professor. What's his big policy idea -- universal healthcare. Maybe he's brilliant and that's what it takes to win in the third. But for a guy of youth, intellegence, and boundless energy, it seems an old, stupid, and tired platform to run on.

There are two constitutional amendments on the primary ballot. The first is an amendment for the gambling industry (again) so that Rockaway Beach can have a casino. While I'm personally tired of amending the Missouri constitution every couple of years to extend gambling (first we had riverboat gambling, then slots, then boats in moats), they've all passed so I guess this one will pass too. Then every dried up old town will be asking for an amendment so they can have a casino. I guess this way some of the gambling money stays here in Missouri to pay for all the ads the industry floods us with to get the amendments.

The second amendment is to define marriage to be between a man and a women. I think it will pass in socially conservative Missouri. There was a big fight earlier between Holden and Blunt as to whether the vote should be held during the primary or the election - Holden hoping to get his base out for the primary and Blunt his base out for the election. Holden won in the Missouri Supreme court, so we'll be voting on it in the primary. Since I'm all for enshrining discrimination in the Constitution, I'm all for the amendment. If it pases, all the dowdy gays will move to Massachusetts or California while all the swinging gays will come here and gamble in Rockaway beach.

The Missouri Primary Blogathon

Absit Invidia will be holding a blogathon for The Jimmy Fund tomorrow, Super Tuesday (at least, that's what they used to call it). You can find links to political bloggers (I'm included because there apparently aren't too many Missouri political bloggers) from all the states which are holding primaries tomorrow. Yes, that includes the great state of Missouri (even if Steven mispells it for reasons known only to himself). So forget partisanship even while following politics and help out a good cause - The Jimmy Fund is dedicated to fighting cancer in children (and adults). So keep up on the Missouri primary, including results (I predict Kerry runs away with it, but then I foolishly believe the polls), check out some blogs you may not have seen before, and above all, help out in the fight against cancer.

Concealed Carry

The Missouri state legislature is considering concealed carry of firearms. Four years ago, we had a referendum (Prop B) that was narrowly defeated -- with huge polarization between rural and suburban/urban. So the Post-Dispatch has weighed in on the subject, and as always while they foresquare against the idea of the average citizen carrying a firearm. I used to be with them on this subject, but I was convinced more than four years ago when I used to participate in the Post's forums that gun control is a dead end.

"Missourians have had this duel before. In 1999, 52 percent of Missouri voters - led by urban residents and suburban Republican women - said no to concealed weapons. That should have settled the matter."

OK, so one vote is good for all time? Let's just keep the current Missouri governor and legislature, the current US President and Congress then. People can't change their minds -- not when it's the outcome we like, anyway.

"Ms. Hanaway is right about the different climate. But she's too smart to think that a citizen packing heat is going to plug a terrorist. It's preposterous for a lawmaker to imply that a concealed-carry law would have made Americans safer on Sept. 11, or now. New York was among states with a concealed-carry law on the books in 2001."

Well, four planes were hijacked that day. That represents the failure of the professionals, all the people who were supposed to keep us safe from that. Of those four, the passengers on three followed the professional advice - don't resist. Those planes killed three thousand people. In the fourth plane, there was enough time for the passangers to consider the professional advice in light of events, and decide instead to resist. Those passengers, a cross section of America, without training, deputizing, or offical sanction, saved the lives of many others and foiled the hijackers intent. So let's not scoff at the efforts of the unwashed masses, they can make a difference.

"The bill would allow concealed weapons in churches, with proper approval, and child care centers but not in casinos, bars, prisons, sports arenas and police stations. And, yes, lawmakers in Jefferson City would be allowed to carry weapons in the House and Senate chambers."

Yeah. Is there a point to this sentance beyond trying to scare people?

"In theory, felons, mentally unstable people and others convicted of misdemeanors involving a crime of violence wouldn't get permits. In practice, some would. Sheriff departments issuing the permits would have no way of flagging the mentally ill and other violent people who had no contact with the criminal justice system. The bill's sponsor, Rep. Larry Crawford, R-California, concedes that this is a flaw, but insists the bill will protect people.

Do you really want to put concealed, loaded pistols in the hands of violent, unstable people who elude background checks? The Senate and the governor should say no, even if it takes a filibuster or a veto to uphold the will of the voters."

At last we are to the meat of it. Allowing concealed carry would NOT put loaded pistols into the hands of violent, unstable people. This bill allows the law abiding to carry a pistol if they so desire. Crooks, the mentally ill, violent and unstable people can already pack heat now if they want. If a law against murder with far greater penalties and social oppobrium doesn't deter someone from murder (or rape, armed robbery, etc), adding a law against concealed carry sure as heck won't. That's the fundamental problem with gun control: It tries to restrain people with a noodle who aren't restrainable by a steel chain.

Another common objection is that otherwise minor kerfuffles would escalate into deadly encounters with concealed carry. The majority of states allow concealed carry, and it hasn't turned them into shooting galleries. Why would Missouri be any different?

And finally, to me the right to self defense is the most fundamental, superceding all others. And allowing concealed carry allows people a choice in how they care to excercise that right. It doesn't preclude dogs, pepper spray, martial arts training, luck, or any other method. If you hate guns, fine. You don't have to carry. By why impose your morality on others?

It's A Beautiful Morning - State and Local

Yesterday's election went well IMHO, both nationally and locally. Sadly, Al Hanson (convicted felon) wasn't voted Missouri's State Auditor, but then I didn't expect that. But all the Amendments, Propositions, etc. actually went the way I voted, something that hasn't happened before. Some of them were very close, what were people thinking close in some instances. Some people wanted to send the tax on cigarettes through the roof, and that was only narrowly defeated. It might have passed if they had only proposed to hike them to the roof I suppose. The logic on this was classic Catch-22 (which, BTW, I saw at the Kirkwood Theatre in my yute) -- not only would the tax stop a whole bunch of smokers from smoking, it would also generously fund a bunch of Good Programs, some of which were, natch, anti-smoking programs. How it could raise money if people actually stopped smoking (or forced people into the black market, more likely) was never explained.

The only sadness in the results was that Craig Borchelt lost to Buzz Westfall for county executive, even though I expected it. The only thing that Buzz ever did to recommend himself to me was to call a judge a liar, although the trouble was it involved a case he badly blew as county prosecutor (Dennis Bulloch - which, having occured pre-internet doesn't exist as far as Google is concerned, but you can read the book). After he was first elected to county exec, it was like he joined the witness protection program, which was fine by me, except he has a propensity for scandals that somehow never seem to matter.

Missouri, fine bellweather state it is, now has a Republican House and Senate for the first time since, ah, oh, Harry S Truman was still a state legislator. Our current Democratic Governor is wildly unpopular, even with yellow dog Democrats who wouldn't vote for him for dog catcher (that's a direct quote from an acquantance who has never, and I mean never voted for a Republican, not even once). Missouri, like most states, got into a budget crunch earlier. The same day Governor Holden announced a new initiative to improve math education, he also announced that a 3 percent reduction in expected revenue would require an 18 percent cut in state expenditures. So in a couple of years we won't have Holden to kick around anymore, although it could easily be a different Democrat.

I Voted Today

It's not often you get the chance to vote for a convicted felon, so I didn't pass up my opportunity and voted today for Al Hanson. You get ample opportunity to vote for people who will go on to commit felonies, some of whom will be convicted later, but in this case it was all out of sequence so I got to vote for somebody after they had already been convicted and paid their debt to society. Amazingly enough, neither the Kansas City Star or the St. Louis Post Dispatch bothered to point out Mr. Hanson's felony record until after he won the Republican primary, but afterwards they were all over the story.

After that I followed a simple proceedure - vote Republican in competitive elections (e.g. Jim Talent), Libertarian in laughers (e.g. Darla Maloney AKA somebody other than Todd Akin who's going to win) - I've voted for so many who've lost over the years I kind of enjoy it now, nobody if it was an unopposed Democrat (e.g. Robert McCulloch, who I won't vote for because in Kinkogate he signed off on a search warrant of Kinko's to catch somebody who sent a non-threatening but wistle blowing fax), against judges if I didn't know anything about them or didn't like the sound of their name (as good a system as any IMHO), against taxes, and against changes to the Missouri Constitution except for St. Louis Home Rule (I figure any change has to be for the better).

I'm one of those people who know how I'm going to vote before I even leave for the polling place - heck, my mind is pretty much already made up for the 2004 elections already and I don't even know who's running or what the amendments and propositions are. I'm generally not swayed by personality or advertising. Last election when MSNBC kept following a focus group of undecideds who couldn't make up their minds until apparently the were in the voting booth, I thought they were out of their minds. I would shout at the TV, "If you can't tell the difference between Bush and Gore, stay home you idiots!" So contrary to the get out the vote message you'll be bombarded with, my message is if you're not sure, don't vote.

I won't be glued to the TV watching the returns tonight if only because I have Cub Scout Roundtable and so will be otherwise constructively engaged. But I'm sure I'll pay close attention to the 10 O'Clock news and pore over the paper in the morning. It's my duty as a citizen, after all.

Talent vs. Carnahan

Jim and Jean had a couple of debates this week - Jean wouldn't agree to any more, and its obvious why. She wouldn't even be an hors d'oeuvre for Russert. But that isn't a reason to not vote for her - she's really no worse than George W. Bush, and in some ways better. I'm sure she's a very nice person, I wouldn’t hesitate to let her watch my kids, and I have no doubts that she was a fine wife, mother, and teacher. But her only qualification was that she was married to a hack politician (that would be Mel Carnahan), and the only reason she's currently a senator is that her husband had the terrible misfortune to die too close to the election to have his name removed from the ballot, and the only reason to vote for her now is that she is a plain label, vanilla Democrat. She hews the party line in toto, and doesn't depart a hairsbreadth from it.

She hasn't a clue about Social Security - how it works or what it's problems are. But she does know the party doesn't want it changed in the slightest, except by another bi-partisan commission like those that have fixed it in the past. Of course she leaves out the part about how those commissions did it by cutting benefits and raising taxes (she's for not raising taxes and cutting benefits personally, but if the commission recommended it, well …), and how the one back in the eighties hit upon the novel idea of collecting more taxes for Social Security than needed, allowing the excess money to be spent as general revenue. But she doesn't want another hand picked commission to recommend privatization, like the last two bi-partisan commissions did, even the one hand picked by Clinton. Putting that surplus tax money in the hands of people as part of Social Security weakens it you see, while continuing to spend it on building another four lane highway in West Virginia, that strengthens Social Security. All she knows about Social Security is that the word "privatization" scares the old people, so the important thing is to be against that, make sure you associate that with your opponent, and pass the buck on how to fix Social Security's upcoming deficit.

In the first debate, Talent questioned her vote against the Department of Homeland Security (she supports one, just with union protection, unlike what the President wants). I don't recall much reaction at the time, but her campaign manager must have decided afterwards that it would be a good angle to complain that Talent had impugned her patriotism. (When a poll claimed her support among Missouri Men had dipped, she immediately had a skeet shooting photo-op and boasted of her firearms prowess to prove her manhood; poor Talent could only talk about how much he liked fishing). So now she's running ads calling Talent "despicable", wrapping herself in the flag - and I mean that literally, her add shows a rippling flag on the left half of the screen while she sits at her senatorial desk on the right and gazes with firm conviction into the distance towards the flag - and wagging her finger (kind of like another better known politician, although without the lip biting) at Talent at the next debate she's so mad now.

I plan on voting for Talent, even though I don't like the way he said "Missour-rah" and "gubmit" during the debate (got to keep that outstate base happy), or the way he runs from the word privatization with respect to social security, or the way he's claiming he'll be able to help education as a Senator . In a close election, he's pandering and playing it safe. Well, he is a politician, and if I wanted some nice old lady, I'd vote for Carnahan, who BTW isn't exactly going for a profile in courage herself, more like the same profile in focus group tested sound bite and attack ad. Instead, I'll plump for somebody who can think for himself, shares my values (and, I admit it, biases), and might make a difference beyond who controls the Senate - yeah, that's important too, but at least I'm getting two birds with my one vote.

Provisional Balloting Heats Up in Missouri

More sound and fury over provisional balloting. It amazes me how we don't devote the resources necessary to the most basic task of a democracy (please, nobody tell me we live in a republic, not a democracy) - to accurately and fairly vote. It's crazy the way we take voting for granted, as if it needs no money and no oversight. The St. Louis election board is notoriously awful - poorly maintained voter rolls, poor communications, and one year they even switched ballots between congressional districts. Quite frankly, they need all the help they can get, and we need to spend a little to make democracy work. When you realize how much money government at all levels handles, it makes sense to spend more than a pittance on one of the most basic functions of democracy - voting.

Provisional Voting

Think we’ll know the outcomes of the election by the morning of Nov 6? Think again. There is a new thing under the sun, provisional ballots, which allow people to vote if they are not on the rolls on election day, with their status to be verified later. Missouri is just one of many states that offer it; next election all states will by federal statute. So the Talent vs. Carnahan race, which could swing the Senate to the Republicans the moment it’s certified, could take up to two weeks to have a winner determined. When you consider the polls for this race are close, and Talent lost his last election (for Governor) by only 20,000 votes, the decision really could hinge on the provisional ballots. Once again we will have teams poring over votes, deciding whether or not they count. And if the past is any guide, most of them will be from black urban voters. Won’t it be fun when the Sharpton circus comes to town with cries of disenfranchisement?