FREE WHITEWATER

Libertarians

The LP Nominee

by  • 

Bob Barr, former GOP congressman from Georgia, and a member of the Libertarian Party since 2006, is now the LP nominee for president.

He has four main political positions:

(1) Significantly reduce the size of government, (2) promote individual liberty, (3) a national defense based on non-intervention, and (4) ‘securing’ our borders (point 4 being a deliberately vague statement that leads to an anti-immigration interpretation.)

(There would have been a time when it would have been clear to a libertarian that free labor markets were America’s best course, and that immigration should be as free as possible. Those days have passed for the LP, and more so for many Republicans and Democrats. We’re a country in the thrall of a new version of mid-nineteenth century Know-Nothing rhetoric. There is little advocacy for liberalized immigration these days. There will be yet again, and when that time comes, those who have held fast to the principle of a free labor market will have been vindicated.)

Barr leads a party that has never won more than 1% of the vote in a presidential election. In the last few presidential races, the LP has fared far worse, winning only a few hundred thousand votes nationally, while Ralph Nader — as the Green Party nominee — has won more votes. (Even Pat Buchanan in 2000 won more votes than the LP nominee that year.)

A majority of LP delegates, and some party officials, think that Barr will bring more votes to the party than ever before. They’d like to see him double the party’s historic 1980 showing. If Barr does so, then he’ll be close to two million votes nationally.

(I know Barr says he’s in the race to win, but many in the LP would consider two million votes the very definition of victory.)

Barr won’t be a factor in Whitewater’s totals. Obama, or even Hillary Clinton, will carry Whitewater over McCain. Barr won’t change that result; even if Barr were to drain votes from the GOP, he would be draining votes from an already-losing local effort.

This is not the town, and surely not the year, for the GOP to expect a local majority to support the Republican presidential nominee.

Barr may change the result somewhere (and in many places if he receives two-million votes), just not Whitewater, Wisconsin.

Daily Bread

Daily Bread: May 28, 2008

by  • 

Good morning, Whitewater

There are no municipal public meetings scheduled in the city today.

The National Weather Service predicts that today will be mostly sunny with a high of 66 degrees. The Farmers’ Almanac says that it will turn unsettled, especially in the Great Lakes.

In our schools, there is a 6:30 p.m. PTA meeting at Lakeview School. At 7:30 p.m., it’s scholarship night at the high school.

The Wisconsin Historical Society reports that on this date in 1837, Milwaukee received its first visit from a steamer, the James Madison.

Free Markets

America’s Dairyland

by  • 

Wisconsin touts itself as America’s Dairyland, and our production of milk is impressive. The Green Bay Press Gazette reports that Wisconsin’s milk production has been rising, with over two billion pounds of milk produced in March, from over 1.25 million cows.

That’s a lot of milk, and one might imagine that it would bring the flexibility to sell milk as farmers might wish. It doesn’t. The FDA bans sales of raw (unpasteurized) milk across state lines, among other restrictions.

Over at Reason magazine, and available online, there’s an article entitled, “Raw Milk Rebellion: How much business does the government have in the barnyard?”

Author Jacob Grier observes that

Though [raw milk producers], and their loyal customers’ devotion to raw milk may seem eccentric to some, the consumption of raw fish in sushi or uncooked meat in beef carpaccio is equally strange to others. And with consumer freedom increasingly under attack from busybodies on the left and right, it’s hard not to admire their rebelliousness and their resolution to drink milk in its freshest form. Though there is certainly a place for reasonable food safety laws, any regulation that leads to otherwise law-abiding farmers being shutdown or arrested has gone too far. With a growing movement of consumers demanding raw milk, the time has come for the government to get out of their way.

For those who want raw milk, there’s a clever, if cumbersome, workaround — purchase shares in a cow, and the milk’s yours, and you can drink it as you wish.

It’s unfortunate that even here, in a milk-producing powerhouse, the federal government restricts and limits what’s available for consumers.

Daily Bread

Daily Bread: May 27, 2008

by  • 

Good morning, Whitewater

There is one municipal public meeting scheduled in the city today — a Community Development Authority Board of Directors meeting at 4:30 p.m.

The National Weather Service — a government agency that offers predictions with flexibility — calls for a high of 57 degrees and partly sunny. The Farmers’ Almanac — a private publication that predicts inflexibly a year in advance — says that it will be mostly fair.

In our school district, there will be a school board meeting at 7:00 p.m.

In Wisconsin history, according to the Wisconsin Historical Society, on this day in 1673, explorers and missionaries Marquette and Joliet reached Green Bay. The Wisconsin Historical Society offers entries from the diaries of Joliet and Marquette at its website.

Libertarians

The LP Convention

by  • 

The Libertarian Party has concluded its 2008 party convention, nominating former Republican representative Bob Barr on the sixth ballot. Barr defeated a field of six other candidates, some longstanding LP members, and many to the libertarian-left (as Barr is to the libertarian-right).

The Denver convention saw over 600 delegates listen, speak, debate, and vote on the choices before them. David Weigel of Reason magazine covered the convention in detail. (He also spoke occasionally during C-Span’s excellent coverage of the convention.)

The deciding and voting takes place at the convention — delegates do not come to the convention bound to vote for a candidate (it would be hard to see libertarians imposing that requirement at their political convention.) So, there is always real uncertainty, and real drama.

The convention was not, as you can guess, a major-party affair. It was decidedly low(er) tech — paper ballots and a single laptop to calculate and display the results. (When the laptop was being used to calculate a given ballot’s results, it was not available to display the previous ballot’s standings. There are small-company meetings that have better production values.)

I saw in a comment at Reason that watching party officials count through paper ballots near the head table was embarrassing to the commenter. Well, it’s a far cry from the major part conventions. It’s not different, though, from how American counted convention votes for most of her history. Low tech, but not unworthy of us.

From Reason magazine —

1) A discussion among some LP candidates, including LP presidential nominee Barr:

2) David Weigel’s assessment of the LP convention, entitled, “Live from the LP Convention: U-N-I-T-Y.”

3) Weigel’s story, “Citizen Bob,” on how former GOP congressman Bob Barr became the 2008 LP nominee.

Libertarians

The LP

by  • 

Although millions of Americans identify themselves as libertarians, a far smaller number are registered members of the Libertarian Party (LP). The LP was founded on December 11th, 1971, in the home of David Nolan.

At the time, neither the Republican nor Democratic parties offered much for those committed to smaller government and peaceful commerce over military intervention.

(The Nixon Administration seldom found a government program, interference with private markets, or foreign policy entanglement it wouldn’t endorse. There were sound reasons for Goldwater and Reagan to see Nixon’s approach as bad for the Republican Party, and America.)

In that era of government expansion, and foreign war, some decided that a third party was the best place to advance a commitment to personal liberty, free markets, and peaceful trade with other nations.

The party has never done so well as the number of libertarians in America led activists to hope. Many libertarians, including those at prominent think tanks and universities, are unaffiliated with any political party. The LP has never received more than about one-percent of the vote in a presidential election. Millions more libertarians vote with one of America’s major political parties come election day.

The party’s official website, at LP.org, lacks the polish of a major party’s site, or even the polish of a typical congressional candidate’s website. It looks as though a few people designed it over a weekend. There’s nothing remotely corporate about it.

Members of the LP share a common commitment to individual liberty, but are otherwise an eclectic bunch. Some look as though they would be at home in any board room or office; others dress and speak in the manner of a sub-culture or counter-culture. Their common philosophical commitment keeps them together, but sometimes only barely.

Many are long-time activists, and sometimes their free personal expression in speech and dress makes them easy targets for stuffy outsiders. Although the LP delegates and activists are outspoken and confident, for each of them there are thousands more who share similar views but might not be so confident. Of that greater number, many are more comfortable living in the tall grass of private life. Watching an LP gathering, it’s easy to see how narrow-minded people might try to bully or marginalize some of the LP’s more colorful members.

I have always enjoyed their company, and listening to them. They’re typically sharp, thoughtful, sincere, and committed people. While the Republican Party balks at support for free trade if Ohio’s at stake, the LP stands for free commerce without flinching. While the Democratic Party hedges on equal marriage rights to make Missouri competitive, the LP is clear in its commitment to equal treatment for all citizens.

The members of the LP are more than party activists; they’re citizens who love America, and are willing to contend for their beliefs.

I would gladly prefer their company and policies to those of an arrogant, pinched majority seeking to cajole and compromise its way to ever-greater, undeserved power.

Libertarians

Libertarians and the LP

by  • 

There are millions of self-identified libertarians in America, but a significantly smaller number of libertarians who are members of the Libertarian Party (LP). Over at the independent Cato Institute, David Boaz has a post, “Libertarian Voters and the Libertarian Party,” describing the number of libertarians in America and in the LP.

Boaz notes that the LP has never received more than about 900,000 votes in a presidential election (in 1980); by contrast, as many as 15-20% of Americans hold what Boaz describes as “broadly libertarian views.” (Boaz has an excellent analysis of the libertarian vote available online at Cato.)

Boaz holds out the possibility of more voters for the LP than ever before:

So the challenge for this year’s Libertarian nominee is this: There’s widespread disillusionment with both parties. Ron Paul tapped into some of that in the Republican primaries and demonstrated that a libertarian candidate could raise a lot of money. Some 15 to 20 percent of the voters — 18 million to 24 million voters in 2004 — hold libertarian views. Those libertarian voters have previously demonstrated their willingness to vote for third-party candidates. In 2006, they swung sharply away from Republican candidates, yet the leading Democrats aren’t offering much to libertarian-minded voters….So there would seem to be a huge potential audience for a Libertarian candidate who could raise money, get media attention, create online buzz, and present a compelling and articulate case for peace, freedom, and limited government.

It’s a tall order for a party that has not won over 1% of the presidential vote, but this may be a year for a significantly greater share for the LP.

Charity

Alzheimer’s Association Provides Books to Area Libraries

by  • 

I received the following press release and photo from the Alzheimer’s Association:

Milwaukee, WI – May 23, 2008 – The Alzheimer’s Association recently donated numerous books on Alzheimer’s disease to public libraries in Walworth County. This effort, which included books for children and adults, was geared toward an ongoing public awareness initiative to provide education and support for the 50,000 people in Southeastern Wisconsin who are dealing with Alzheimer’s disease or a related dementia.

Specific books available at the public libraries in Walworth County include “The 36-hour Day: A Family Guide to Caring for People with Alzheimer’s Disease”, and “Memory Loss in Later Life”, as well as children’s books entitled “Striped Shirts and Flowered Pants: A Story About Alzheimer’s Disease for Young Children”, and “Always My Grandpa: A Story for Children About Alzheimer’s Disease”. Funding for the books was provided by a grant from the Southeastern Wisconsin Community Foundation. For information on local services relating to Alzheimer’s disease or related dementia, contact Wendy Betley, Regional Services Coordinator and Care Consultant, at 262.210.5288.

The Alzheimer’s Association is a national non-profit organization dedicated to eliminating Alzheimer’s disease through the advancement of research and to enhance care and support for individuals, their families, and caregivers. The Alzheimer’s Association of Southeastern Wisconsin provides information, education, and support to people with Alzheimer’s and related dementias, their families, and healthcare professionals throughout an 11-county region. For more information about Alzheimer’s disease and local services visit www.alz.org/sewi or call the toll-free, 24-hour Helpline at 800-272-3900.

The above photo was taken at the Matheson Memorial Library in Elkhorn. Pictured from left to right are:

Wendy Betley, Regional Services Coordinator and Care Consultant of the Alzheimer’s Association
Lisa Selje, Library Director at the Matheson Memorial Library
Jennifer Wharton, Youth Services Librarian at the Matheson Memorial Library

Planning

Bargaining & Planning

by  • 

There have been months of controversy over the possibility of residential first floor housing in our downtown.

Setting aside how this issue has been debated, considered, and decided, here’s my take in support of first floor housing subject to conditional use approval.

Traditionally, first floor housing in the downtown was subject to approval only as a conditional use. More recently, at the urging of members of Downtown Whitewater, Inc., and many others, there was a request to impose a moratorium on approval of conditional use permits until the Planning Commission had the opportunity to offer a recommendation.

The choices that have been before us: Ban, reject a ban, or amend with a two year sunset clause (leaving a future Council to decide whether to renew the ban before its expiration)? Many have spoken in favor of a moratorium or ban over these last months. There is no dispute that those who favor this approach favor it strongly.

You may know, too, that I have been willing to offer a dissenting view; that willingness is present in this case, too. Someone who speaks in dissent, by definition, does not favor decision by plebiscite. One should be willing to advocate in spite of a majority on the other side.

Readers know that I was only lukewarm toward a temporary moratorium against the Planning Commission’s ability to grant conditional uses for first floor housing in the Downtown. Without a moratorium, the Planning Commission could vote in favor, or against, a given conditional use request.

If I would not prefer a lengthy moratorium, then I would not favor a ban, either. Opposition to a ban does not mean support of first floor housing in any given case; I would favor keeping the option available.

A conditional use request need not be approved, and by its nature could impose requirements on the request for a first floor downtown residence (size, floor plan, etc.). I have contended that these imposed requirements may prove onerous. Still, they offer an applicant an opportunity where a ban offers none.

I have opposed a ban. That would not settle the issue — but leave possibilities: conditional use approval, or conditional use rejection. Fair enough to me, and consistent with the idea that applicants could offer proposals as a bargain with a municipality or municipal board to win approval.

If the price of approval seemed to high, then no deal (with either side possibly deciding against the proposal). As I noted before, if the conditions seem too burdensome, it will be evident though open, public bargaining and debate.

I would not foreclose the possibility of bargaining and a deal.

Cartoons & Comics

Friday Morning Cartoon

by  • 

Here’s a Felix the Car cartoon from the 1930s, in color. The use of color gives the cartoon a completely different appearance from last week’s cartoon. In this short film, Felix meets King Cole, and battles some ghosts. Enjoy.

more >>

Daily Bread

Daily Bread: May 23, 2008

by  • 

Good morning, Whitewater

It’s a private sector, civil society only day: there are no public meetings scheduled for Whitewater today.

In Wisconsin history on this day in 1903, according to the Wisconsin Historical Society, Wisconsin became the first state to elect candidates directly in a primary election, rather than through a convention or caucus. The progressive proposal was itself put to a direct vote, approved in a statewide referendum one year later.

The National Weather Service calls for 60 degrees, and partly sunny. For the Farmers’ Almanac, it’s a prediction of heavy rains.

City

Common Council Meeting for May 6th

by  • 

Our Common Council met on May 6th, and there are two topics that I will briefly address.

The local bus company contacted the city to request a change in the city ordinance regulating use of warning lights for school buses. There were two challenges with this request. No one from the bus company was able to attend the meeting, and the ordinance as proposed was unclear (did the bus company want discretion in the use of warning lights at all times, or discretion only occasionally?) The discussion at Council revealed that there was uncertainty, and so the matter was postponed for further discussion.

If a private concern wants a proposed ordinance change that directly and specifically involves its business, a principal of the concern should be available to answer any questions. The wording of the proposed change should also be consistent with what the business wants. That’s probably the least that a city should expect before considering the matter.

There was also a discussion of whether a Common Council member should sit on the Police and Fire Commission. The Council decided that the answer should be yes, but that the change would not take effect for one year (as there was a nomination process already underway for 2008).

There’s time (a year) to write about whether it’s permissible for a Common Council member to sit on the PFC. (Some cities in Wisconsin have this practice; there is a Wisconsin Attorney General’s opinion that contends a city may not place a Council member on a PFC.)

In any event, though, if one contends that our present arrangement has been working well, then might as well contend that anything works well.