Allright, I am not sure how to begin this post.  I am fit to be tied with Ohio politics.  Two major events happened recently, that bother me a great deal, and I feel the need to try to shoe-horn them both into this post.

The Mark Dann Plea Deal

So let me see if I understand this one.  Mark Dann resigned in disgrace.  Almost everyone in the upper echelons of his administration has pled guilty to something serious.  All were required to cooperate with a prosecution against him for his felonious misdeeds, and a misdemeanor plea deal is all Ron O'Brien and his staff could put together?  The man made the attorney general's office his own personal play ground, and misspent who knows how much money from the public treasury.  He lived like a head of state from a foreign nation, and the best that the prosecutor could manage was a slap on the wrist?

Really?  Are the Ohio taxpayers supposed to swallow this bile?  The deal did not include repayment for the frivilous spending of tax payer monies on travel, meals, and the like.  It did not require that he identify with the Auditor's office every  bit of profligate waste and repay it.  It did not require that he apologize to the electorate of Ohio for breaking their faith and trust.  It did not require a full mea culpea for his wantonly arrogant and ignorant behavior.  It did not include a requirement that he surrender his law license.  It did not include a permanent ban on his seeking elective office in the future.  The deal didn't even require that he enter a guilty plea to anything.

It leaves me asking, how is this justice?  How does this help restore the electorate's faith and trust?  How does this serve as calling this individual to account for his rediculous behavior that was beyond the pale?  How does this call him to some measure of meaningful accountability for using a transition fund as his own personal checking account?  The deal did not require he refund every penny in that account to the people that gave it to him under the belief that he would use it for legitamite purposes.  It didn't even require him to restore the misspent funds to the transition account.

In short, Mark Dann got off light.  He got a deal that he shouldn't have been able to get.  He should have been forced into the dock, been forced to completely make amends for his behavior, and admit that he was guilty.  Failing that...  He should have been tried, and found guilty by a competent jury of legally enforceable standing.  Anything less, doesn't repair the breach of faith with the electorate.  Anything less doesn't serve as the cautionary tale to would-be corrupt politicians in waiting considering his course in some way, shape, or form.

Mark Dann gets to walk away scot free.  He gets to go before a disciplinary board of the legal profession, where he will get less punishment than he received from the criminal justice system.  He might face a small fine, or short suspension of his license to practice law, but nothing more.  And the really really really ridiculous part is this: he can run for office anytime he likes.  He could show up on the ballot in any election, at any time he wants in the future.  How is this turn of events fair?  How is it justice?

Would a thief get treated this way if he stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from someone?  Would a thief be allowed to enter an alford plea and walk away with a couple of misdemeanor counts, and no requirement to repay the stolen funds?  The answer is no.  Any other criminal would not be given this treatment.  So why in the name of all things holy, do we let a politician get away with this?  The breach of faith is much more serious when someone that holds the public trust commits larceny.  Why is Dann not in jail right now?

Simply put...  I just don't get it!

New Strickland Ad

Just after the election a new ad began running from the Strickland camp.  The ad is a pure attack ad, and goes out after Kasich for of all things earning a living.  It takes him to task for supporting NAFTA, and MFN for China.  The ad trully distorts Kasich's record, and paints him of being guilty of the Wall Street debacle, because he worked on Wall Street.

In short, its a disgusting ad that is absolutely negative, and disengenuous at the same time.  It seeks to set the terms of the debate on something other than the results of the Strickland economy in Ohio.  The governor's team is throwing a strong punch below the belt to try to fend off a serious accounting of his performance as governor. 


Simply put, Ted Strickland doesn't want to talk about his record on job creation in Ohio.  The prison psychologist from Tar Hollow doesn't want to talk about the pathetic job he has done at creating jobs, improving the economic climate in Ohio, or making Ohio a palatable place for economic investment.  Both governor Strickland and his staff refuse to be held accountable for their performance.  They constantly blame everyone but themselves for the economy that the average Ohioian faces today.  They blame the Taft administration, the Bush administration, and its fair to say they would blame mickey mouse too in order to avoid being held responsible for this economy.

They don't want the campaign to boil down to the following question; "Are you better off today than you were before Ted Strickland became your governor?"  They are fighting like hell to avoid that being the geography of the campaign.  I suppose I can't blame them, with a record on job creation, and economic growth as horrible as his I would be doing everything I could to prevent it.  At the end of the day, I think the average Ohio voter is smarter than that.  I think they will seek to blame the current occupant of the governor's office for this current landscape.  At least, I hope they do.

The reason for my hope is simple, Kasich is the right man to be our governor right now.  Under his leadership, the US government was under a balanced budget.  Under his chairmanship of the House budget committee, budgets were produced that were in balance.  Sure those were different economic times, but does anyone honestly believe that John Kasich isn't up to the task of rationally rectifying the train wreck that governor Strickland's policies have led this state into?  John Kasich is capable of making hard choices, even downright unpopular ones in order to set the ship of state on an even keel.

Our current governor has based his budgets on one time money that won't be there in the next budgetary cycle.  He has steadfastly refused to change the climate of State government.  In his entire tenure as governor, he hasn't done anything to relieve the stress in Ohio's economy.  He hasn't moved to aggressively bring in new investment into Ohio.  He hasn't moved to create new sources of jobs, and new prosperity to our state.  And under his tenure, the economic output of Alabama has been greater than Ohio.

In short, the ad left me apoplectic!

So both issues really left me fit to be tied and angry!

One of my favorite David Bowie songs is called 'changes'.  It is a typical late 70's song that like most was too long and too repetitive, but even with that I adore it.  The song focuses on the ever changing flow of life and how we handle it and how we respond to it.  It points out that change is inevitable and that the best route is to 'turn and face the strain' and accept the nature of what life is pitching at us next.

As I was reading people's comments about the state of the church recently, I was listening to this song.  I couldn't escape the feeling that things weren't as bad as some were saying it was.  The comments were dire to be sure.  Some were predicting the end of the church, others were saying that we now reside in a post-christian landscape.  And yet, I found myself unwilling to accept the most dire of the predictions.

I found myself realizing one central truth, change is constant.  As the centuries have rolled by change has been the primary and immutable force behind it all.  We can't assume that the church will be the same tomorrow as it is today.  Only God is able to pull that one off.  The church as we know it today may cease to exist, but that has been true since the ascension of Christ into the heavens.

Think about it this, would a medieval christian recognize the faith as it expressed today?  My guess is that the answer would be a big fat no.  And yet the fundamental tennets of the faith remain unchanged from that time to this, the only thing that's changed is the expression.  If we were permitted to come back a century from now, (assuming that the Lord tarries that long), would we recognize the same faith that we claim as our own today?  The answer would be that I don't think that we would.

As such, I think people need to ease up on the dire rhetoric a bit.  God will still be God tomorrow.  The church is the bride of Christ and it belongs to God.  God won't allow his bride to be destroyed!  We should relax a bit and allow God to be God in the midst of this, and accept the changes that are coming to the church. 

A new generation is beginning the process of taking over the leadership of the church, the baby boomers are starting the process of marching off into retirement.  A generational shift of this magnititude was likely to cause some shock waves.  The key is that the church can handle it.  The bride has survived much worse in her tenure on this earth.  If she survived the first century Roman genocide attempts, she can weather this without breaking a sweat.

As for the post-christian landscape comments, allow me to say the following...  I am not sure that the christian landscape was much more than a thin veneer that covered over a whited sepulcher filled with dead men's bones.  I am not convinced that it was ever all that christian to begin with.  If we trully reside in a place with this sort of geography, which I am not convinced of in the first place, then I believe its a good thing.  At least, we can admit that what we're calling this landscape is actually what it really is.  In other words, we aren't saying its christian, when it is anything but that.

Change is a good thing.  We need to accept it.  We need to turn and face the strain, and move forward in stride with our creator, our redeemer, and our God.  Anything less will leave us stuck in the past without a path of forward progress.  Anything less will turn us into the 21st century equivalent of the Amish, without all the interesting skills, and abilities. 

In some recent discussions online, I have gotten some grief for my support of State Issue 2.  It was a follow-on issue from the Casino gambling initiative that passed in the last election cycle.  A powerful nimby, (not in my backyard), movement forced Penn National to move the Casino site from downtown Columbus, to an abandoned automobile plant on the far west side of Columbus.  This move forced another vote of the people of Ohio, since the original initiative had spelled out precisely where the casinos would be built, and builing the casino anywhere else would not have been Constitutional.

I supported the original amendment and this most recent follow-on.  Some have given me grief for this position.  Some have even gone so far as to question the substance of my faith, because I support it.  Regardless of whether or not it is fair to do so, in the ebb and flow of the initiative process a lot of things get bandied about, some valid and some not.  And I assure you of two things, I am a big boy and I can take scurilous accusations like that, and the state of my faith is fine.

On this issue, I have taken a pragmatic approach.  Saying no to gambling again, would not have prevented Ohioians from gambling.  In fact, Ohio is the only major state in the region that didn't allow it.  Billions of dollars left our state every year to Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Michigan, and Canada.  In some cases, the casinos outside of Ohio are just over the border.  A couple had connected hotels in Ohio and the casino was in the state that allowed the gambling. 

Saying no to gambling was going to do nothing more than to allow other states to reap massive windfalls of tax dollars off the backs of Ohioians while Ohio had to foot the bill for all the problems that gambling creates.  At least under this amendment, Ohio gets a fair deal, and everyone benefits.  Sticking our collective head in the sand, and saying 'no' to gambling wasn't in the best interests of Ohio. 

And in this case, the state received hundreds of millions of dollars in licensing fees for the casinos, much needed construction jobs, and a portion of the profit goes to where it is needed most; the counties.  The profits will pay for things like putting more cops on the streets, and more fire and ems services.  This amendment was a win-win for Ohio.  Any effort to paint it otherwise just doesn't wash.

In the direct case of this amendment, I was angry that a group of people were allowed to win a victory that they didn't win at the ballot box.  The nimby movement that forced Penn National to move to the West side of Columbus.  I really despise these movements, as they run counter to the collective good, and are never focused on anything other than short term gains, or the gains of a very select few people.  In this case, a group didn't want their view of the Scioto ruined from the expensive condos in the arena district.  Never mind that the site is right now a hot mess of a former industrial site, turned abandoned festering hole.  How the existing state is preferable to a developed casino is beyond me?

But I digress...  This new amendment had its own nimby's lobbying against its passage.  They made outrageous claims about a casino coming to their area.  And again, I had no sympathy for them.  The new site is abandoned right now.  The area it will be located in is economically depressed to say the least.  There is a wealth of vacant commerical space in the general vicinity.  And there is little to no residential development in within a quarter mile of the site.

I voted for it, because building a casino now, is a good long term asset that will help our community's flagging economic position.  I know some people won't be happy with Tuesday's result, but with open democratic processes some people never are.  The last tally I saw, showed overwhelming support for the initiative with nearly 70% voting in the affirmative.  Regardless of how you slice it, that's a landslide.

And if you are a nimby out there, console yourself with the following items.
1.   This initiative will put more cops on the streets of Franklin County.
2.  This initiative will add more fire and ems capacity. (In a time of shrinking budgets no less.)
3.   Your local econonmy will be bolstered by a casino development, whose initial price tag is likely to be close to half a billion dollars.  That's money that will be poured into the local economy.
4.   Your local economy will be bolstered by the creation of tens of thousands of new jobs both to construct and operate the casino.
5.   The profits will benefit your community directly in ways that you can't even to begin to imagine right now.

So let's all stop bickering about the casino and look forward to the positives this situation will provide.

So it is election day again in Ohio.  The May primary season comes to a head tonight, and all the annoying commercials, leaflets, fliers, and junk mail will cease tomorrow.  Tomorrow we will know how everything turned out.  We will be able to bask in the glow of a new mandate from the elctorate that should guide our republic going forward.  We will be able to grasp firmly the will of the people on a broad array of issues confronting Ohioians.

Regardless of how you feel about politics, you have to marvel at a republic that peacefully decides how they shall be governed.  You have to stand in awe that unlike so many other countries the world over, the American tradition of democracy is both vibrant and strong.  Troops are not required to guard polling places, or protect the citizenry from the dangerous actions of the radical nut jobs.  That isn't meant to say that we don't have radical nut jobs in this country, because we do.  We just don't have to defend our electoral process from them.  We invite them into our system, and if the crop of elected officials in this country is any indicator, we've had success bringing them into the process.

Our elections aren't without arguements or controversy by any means.  We just never need tanks or machine guns on the streets to solve them.  We are able to resolve the problems that confront our elections through a reasonably fair, and objective process that is usually transparent and usually embodies the principles upon which our nation was founded.  We are able to disagree about the process without killing each other doing it.

My challenge to you today, isn't to agree or disagree with me.  It is to look at your sample ballot which can be found on the Ohio Secretary of State's website, and look at your choices.  I urge you to look closely at what and who is on your ballot.  And make an informed decision on the subjects that it embodies.  After having taken the ten minutes to do that...  GO VOTE!!!

Elections are decided by who shows up.  If you want the bitching rights tomorrow about how it turned out, you have to go vote today.  The polls in Ohio close today at 7pm.  If you don't know where you can find your polling place, check your county board of election's website and you can locate it easily.  Have a good day.

Under the vast majority of circumstances, my views regarding economic theory could be described as very much in agreement with Milton Freedman.  I believe in limited government as the best method of propelling the economy forward.  I believe in free trade, as when markets are trully free they do a better job of deterring aggression than any formal treaty ever will.  I believe that protectionism always fails utterly, and usually harms the country that implements it in ways that cannot be foreseen at the front end when it is enacted.

Having said all that there are two areas in which my hackles get raised instantly, and I become an angry populist.  And those two areas are Wall Street and Corporate Management.  I despise both with a visceral hatred that burns with a white hot fervor.  And the reasons are many for this, but they all boil down to the inverse relationship to reality that they both have.  When something turns out to be good for the worker, better pay, better working conditions, better benefits, Wall Street always views that as a negative item.  It seems that always when workers get a better share of the economic pie, that Wall Street sees that as a bad thing.

I despise this mentality and every manifestation of it.  Wall Street doesn't see the ridiculous bonus structure for Corporate Management as a bad thing.  They don't see the Board of Directors Golden Parachutes as a bad thing.  They don't view the stunningly out of touch pay packages that top managers receive to be a bad thing.  Wall Street analysts don't downgrade a stock offering from a company purely because the CEO is making a large mountain of cash regardless of how he or she performs.  Wall Street typically reserves the downgrade for when the employees do better.  When they get a better deal, Wall Street cautions people from buying the stock.  As if buying the stock of a company that values its employees is a bad thing.

Wall Street rewards the companies that do poorly by their employees with better ratings on the stock and bond offerings.  They tend to write nice things about these companies.  Their analysis tends to be favorable when they are treating their employees like Scrooge treated his at the outset of A Christmas Carol.  And honestly, its ridiculous.  Honestly, it doesn't work for the long term betterment of our democracy.  It artificially holds down wages, and keeps people in poverty that shouldn't be.

Truth be told, I wouldn't be so hard on Wall Street, if they were fair.  If they downngraded a stock or bond offering equally as to the extravagance of the board room and top manager's total compensation package as when the average employee on the line of the company gets an additional $.10 an hour paid out over the next three years.  If Wall Street would gauge the healthcare cost of the top echelon of a company on the same scale that they grade the employee healthcare packages, I would be pleased as punch.

The problem is that they can't do that.  If they do that, then their hypocrisy would be evident for all to see.  The traders that make tens of millions in bonuses, even when the company experiences a loss.  The CEO's of banking firms that make massive bonuses even if their company ends up in bankruptcy.  The company that pays the managers that lead them into the abyss of bankruptcy still get paid monster bonuses.  All of these would be front and center for all to see.  People would point and laugh.  People would wonder why our nation has annointed these dolts to run the financial sector, when they can't manage their own houses any better than a crackhead on a bender.

Our nation's most recent meltdown had more to do with Wall Street's inability to properly manage and discipline it's own than anything that happened on Main Street.  The sheer ignorance and wanton arrogance of the Wall Street loons has caused massive pain for everyone the world over. 

And yet, where is the bill from our Congress to more closely scrutinize Wall Street?  Where is the bill that would clean up the regulatory mess of this sector?  Where is the bill that would prevent finanical firms from becoming too big to fail, or at least regulate firms that get into this category more closely?  Where is the bill that criminalizes the perpetration of accounting fraud, that lowers the burden of proof in a prosecution of accounting fraud, and tightens accounting rules such that companies would no longer be allowed to keep tens of billions of debt off their balance sheets?

The recent meltdown cost average investors billions of dollars.  And I am left wondering, where is their bailout?  We sent hundreds of billions of dollars to huge financial firms that caused this mess, and what has it really gotten us?  Unemployment is still in double digits, and job growth right now is nonexistent.  The American taxpayer would have been better served if everyone had received a $5,000 stimulus check. 

The end result would have been the same amount of public debt being pilled up, but it would have benefitted the people that make America work everyday.  Our economy might have seen a few more financial firms fail, but on some level our economy could have absorbed it, especially if we all had that extra money in our hands.  The banks that were sound would have survived, and it would have sent the right message to Wall Street.  The message would have been, "Your role in our economy doesn't come with a government backed pry bar into the wallets of the American Treasury.  When you take shockingly ridiculous risks you have to pay the price for those risks."