THE BEER BEAT: Schansberg explains Sunday and Indiana's lingering sales restrictions: "Support for restrictions is driven by greenbacks more than blue laws."

I've decided to post this link on Saturday so you'll have time to read it before Sunday, when you can readily purchase cold beer to go at your local brewery, but not at a liquor store or a grocery.

We still refer to restrictive laws like these as "blue," but as Eric points out, the prime motivator usually is green.

SCHANSBERG: A history of Sunday and what it has to do with beer, by Eric Schansberg (Funding 'Bama on Bill Hanson's Knee)

In his new book, “A Brief History of Sunday,” Justo Gonzalez explains how we arrived at our sense of Sunday and “the Sabbath.” It is worthwhile to review this history and then consider how it relates to “blue laws” — legislative restrictions on economic activity on Sundays.

Before Christianity began to dominate world culture, civilizations used different ways to identify “weeks” and “months,” needing to observe lengths of time between days and years. Setting the table for Christianity, the Jewish calendar was built around a seven-day week, with its Creation-based Sabbath.

I'll cut directly to the part about "blue laws," because this is a beer column, after all.

Of course, legislation and political economy are always a matter of theory vs. practice. If one wants to legislate rest, the ideal may be prayer, study, acts of service and devotion. But those who don’t want to pray or pray so much will do other things with their “spare time.” So, the reality was often a desire to play instead of pray — something that legislation also sought to regulate.

This brings us to today’s “blue laws.” While fading in recent decades, such laws are still on the books in many states. In Indiana on Sundays, for example, dealers cannot sell cars. And as the recent case of Rickers Oil Co. reminded us, there are restrictions on alcohol sales (although fewer so for bars, restaurants and breweries and wineries that have been granted exceptions by the state).

An economist would expect “blue laws” to be driven by three motives ...

You'll have to go to the newspaper to read the rest, but it's worth the time. Will Indiana's legislature ever get its act together with regard to the crazy quilt of conflicting alcohol laws, exceptions and re-exceptions?

(breaths aren't being held on this end)

Jeff Gahan's "nothing positive" comment is an admission of malice as it pertains to local independent businesses.

"(Roger’s) never done anything in a positive manner to help the city of New Albany”
--Jeff Gahan

Eric Schansberg, professor of economics at IU Southeast, was reading Fb when Mayor Gahan's quote was mentioned. Here's what he had to say about it.

Here's a jack-wagon and false thing to say: "He's never done anything in a positive manner to help the city of New Albany."

The mayor doesn't understand the beauty of capitalism and mutually beneficial trade. Under that metric alone, you've done millions of things that have been positive.

I thanked him and replied.

I was thinking, well, our life savings and a total investment of a million bucks (in NABC) might be considered a positive in some quarters.

He explained in greater detail.

That's a way to measure some of the larger, easier-to-see impacts of your work and vocation. But you make a positive impact every time you sell a beer or a pizza-- in terms of the narrow economics and the broader social implications for community, etc.

Politicians have a similar op -- in providing an environment in which such activity (and other) can occur. But of course, politicians can also engage in Peter/Paul crony capitalism or worse.

Putting it another way, it is *ridiculous* to say that a business owner has never done anything positive. It is far more likely for one to be mayor without doing anything positive for a city as a whole.

Considering Eric's comments, the plain fact is that if Jeff Gahan is capable of tarring me with this "non-positive" brush, it isn't only me he's smearing.

It's every single entrepreneur and local business owner in town, the economic clout of whom has barely scored a blip from City Hall during the past four years.

Recall that independent local businesses in America with fewer than fifty employees generally are credited with generating roughly 30% of the economic activity.

In New Albany's historic downtown business district and the neighborhoods immediately surrounding it, this percentage is likely higher. These are the businesses widely understood to have done the most in sustaining the core during the lean years, then revitalizing a formerly moribund area with a fresh wave of food, drink, retail and service businesses to complement the survivors of a previous era.

Not chains, not Flaherty and Collins, and not the Disney Corporation.

Rather, local independent businesses.

Like mine, like yours.

Like the ones that keep money in the local economy, create jobs and grind it out all year long ... not merely during special occasions.

And yet, not only does the city's economic development effort weirdly tout just about any other ephemeral and improbable definition of "trickle down" activity capable of disturbing a sleeping Orwell (anything/everything bonded with TIF counts as economic development absent any need to qualify or explain) -- all the while pretending to be responsible for investments made by grassroots entrepreneurs, business owners and developers -- but City Hall now is on record, from the mouth of our highest ranking elected official at a public debate, as denigrating them.

Soon I'll be leaving my current business, but I'm proud of what we've achieved in the past quarter century. I put every bit of skin I had into this game, and I busted my ass in the process. When I walk away from the business, it'll be with only a fraction of what I put into it, primarily because I usually reinvested in it and refrained from taking value out of it -- but the business itself will continue doing what it's always done.

These folks involved with economic development at the municipal level ... have any of them actually ever owned a business?

Yep. Didn't think so.

Thanks to everyone for the comments and notes. It surprised even me when Gahan said what he did, and I'm typing as fast as I can trying to answer all of you.

When I'm mayor, you can trust me to put the local economy first. It's one of our most important assets, and we deserve better than this.

By the way ... Jeff Gahan has yet to answer the Indie Fest challenge, which is no surprise considering City Hall's antipathy toward the event in 2015. However, that depressing story will have to wait.

Roger still challenges municipal candidates to support Indie Fest. Even you, Adam?

"To End All Wars" redux.

I happened upon a blog entry by Eric Schansberg, and it's always interesting to note when someone else reads the same book you did.

Hochschild's "To End All Wars" on World War I (Schansblog)

A really important and under-emphasized war...

I knew too little about it, something remedied to some extent by Adam Hochschild's excellent book, To End All Wars.

My own thoughts on Hochschild's work came last summer:

ON THE AVENUES: For no reason at all (August 4, 2011)

 ... A century later, it all seems preordained, but we forget that amid an unholy flurry of secret treaties coming to deadly fruition in the aftermath of Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s messy demise in Sarajevo, Europe’s prevailing warmongers retained a nagging fear: The continent’s socialists might actually make good on their “brotherhood of mankind” rhetoric, oppose mobilization, reject conflict, and require heightened internal warfare against the indigenous working class so as to conduct external warfare against neighboring countries.

Sometimes we settle for the "mental" variety, as when Erika snarls and the Copperhead shakes.

I monitor Eric Schansberg's Schansblog very regularly, and regularly find it thought provoking even when I disagree (which is fairly often). Seldom have I been startled by a headline, but here's one to catch the reader's attention:

pornography, masturbation, and the brain

You'll just have to go read the post. Speaking of masturbation, here’s the latest Freedom to Screech posting:

WHAT THE HELL IS THIS FOR?

I've wondered that almost every time I've read FOS for the past three or four years. Lots of jerking, no brains to speak of. Finally, I was eager to see what our favorite ward heeler has to say about current city affairs, but Dan Coffey hasn't had time to update his blog since Easter.

I empathize. Blogging's hard, even when you can write.

Is it time for a countdown clock to La Rosita's downtown?

Alert "Hot Wheels": Schansberg makes his 9th district pick.

Predictions, observations and questions about the GOP's highest profile contest tomorrow, from a former candidate and current (gasp) Travis Hankins supporter. No spoilers here, so click on the link to see who Eric thinks will win:

Who's going to win in the 9th (District)?, by Eric Schansberg (Schansblog).

We've had a unique GOP primary here in the 9th District of Indiana -- presumably, the only time a five-time candidate has gone up against two serious campaigners.

Schansberg to eschew Libertarian run for Congress, will work for GOP's Hankins.

Tribune sez:

Schansberg ditching Libertarian run to chair Hankins campaign (by Daniel Suddeath).

A former suitor of Indiana’s 9th District U.S. House seat, Eric Schansberg chose not to run in 2010 because he found a candidate that reflects his core political principles ...

... But he isn’t totally exiled from the race. Schansberg has volunteered for Republican Travis Hankins’ team, and is serving as campaign chairman ...

... Hankins emphasizes issues that Schansberg also touted during his two runs at the House: Reduction of the size of government, instilling Congressional term limits and like Schansberg, Hankins is pro-life on abortion.

Schansberg elaborates on the forthcoming Republican primary at his blog:

The 9th District Republican primary: an overview.

One last thing: Does (Mike) Sodrel's entry help (Todd) Young or Hankins more so? On the one hand, Sodrel divides the establishment vote (at least somewhat). On the other hand, Sodrel divides the segment of voters who are most interested in social conservatism.

Open thread: In the 9th, Hill vs. Sodrel IV enlivened by the Libertarian.

Only a handful of days remain until the conclusion of a seemingly endless political campaign that surely must have started in 2002 … and, in fact, did.

That’s when Mike Sodrel challenged Baron Hill for the first time, and lost, setting the stage for a successful rematch, then another loss, and now a fourth effort. In the end, there have been enough sequels to embarrass even Rocky Balboa.

Considering the Libertarian candidate Eric Schansberg's second 9th district bid, my personal 9th district electoral strategy remains as it was in 2006, when I gleefully paraphrased Abraham Lincoln:

"If I could vote for Hill to beat Sodrel I would do it and if I could vote for Schansberg to beat Sodrel I would do it and if I could leave all of them alone and skip the election to beat Sodrel I would do that. The thing is to beat Sodrel.”

Two recent NAC articles considered a few of the angles:

Indiana's 9th district contest: A million miles on a set of retreads? Are you kidding?

Schansberg: " ... Nose-holders in both parties now have an option which would allow them to sleep better at night."

Granted, we may already have beaten this one to death, but comments are welcomed just in case.

ELECTION Q&A: U.S. Congress 9th District (New Albany Tribune)

Baron Hill for Congress (D - incumbent)
Mike Sodrel for Congress (R)
Eric Schansberg for Congress (L)

Schansberg: " ... Nose-holders in both parties now have an option which would allow them to sleep better at night."

With the Libertarian candidate's permission, here is Eric Schansberg's unedited response to my post on Sunday, Indiana's 9th district contest: A million miles on a set of retreads? Are you kidding?

---

In a word: an eloquent beat-down of Sodrel; "palpable resignation" in choosing Hill; and considerable respect with disagreement on some issues for me.

Thanks for your kind words!

Thoughts on two of the labels you used...

You refer to my "fundamentalist religious orientation". As an aside: is this a good time for a reference to "choice" vs. "was I born that way"? ;-) In any case, I'd be more careful throwing around a label like that.

First, it's not true about me in general terms. Anyone who knows me in terms of my theology and Christian walk would be hard-pressed to make that pejorative stick.

Second, you connect my fundamentalism to my views on abortion. Again, I'd take care with that assertion as well-- if one's views are based on a bizarre view of a sacred text (the Constitution) and decades-old science (on when life begins).

More broadly, and I don't know you well enough to say this about you, but many in your crowd suffer from various forms of fundamentalism with respect to the State, Nature, and so on.

And then there's the term "progressive". You might want to check the Progressive Handbook on this. But I don't think you're allowed to claim the label when you publicly support a candidate who does nothing substantive to get us out of Iraq, says nothing about the 15.3% tax on every dollar earned by the working poor, nothing about the negative rate-of-return on Social Security for African-Americans, and so on. I'll admit that Hill seems quite strong on keeping our kids away from porn and supporting our veterans. But that hardly seems like enough for a "progressive" to actively promote the status quo.

Instead of progressive, I think you mean "pragmatist". Of course, I need voters to be more principled. And with Hill cruising to victory with a 11-15% lead, nose-holders in both parties now have an option which would allow them to sleep better at night.

I'd love to win. That said, assuming a second-tier miracle is not in the offing, reaching 10% is within reach. (We were at 7% in the last poll.) Reaching double-digits would hopefully lead to a national discussion of third-party candidates (including various types of "progressives")-- something all of us, presumably, want to see.

Don't waste your vote this time. Vote Schansberg for Congress on November 4th.

Indiana's 9th district contest: A million miles on a set of retreads? Are you kidding?

If you happen to be reading from afar, be aware that my blog and I both reside in Indiana’s 9th congressional district, which for much of my life – 34 years, to be exact – was represented by Lee Hamilton, a Democrat.

When Hamilton retired in 1999, he was succeeded by Baron Hill, also a Democrat, but one that cannot be identified with the party’s liberal wing.

(Excuse me if I err in taking for granted that such a beast even exists in the American two-party, non-genuine-choice system.)

Hill served two congressional terms before being defeated by Republican Mike Sodrel in 2004. Sodrel, a trucking magnate, actually lives just outside New Albany, a fact that is largely meaningless, but one that I diligently report in an effort to find something favorable to write about the mercifully short-lived political phenomenon of Sodrelism.

In truth, when it comes to Sodrel’s unapologetically Falangist political orientation, there is very little positive to say. During his two years on Capitol Hill, Sodrel’s fawning fealty to the miserably failed George W. Bush bordered on the pathological. With no visible prompting, he could be counted on to prostrate himself before King George in what amounted to an unappetizing display of groveling reminiscent of the Ottoman Empire at its zenith.

Sodrel’s running yet again, and I see that the man dubbed by his foes as “Millionaire Mike” is selling himself (no puns, please) as “Million Mile” Mike in his recent television ads.

Considering Sodrel’s numerous previous bids for the seat, why not “Million Yawn Mike”?

I prefer “A Million Votes with the Discredited Bush Mike.”

Or, to recognize the storybook rags to riches to sags tale: “Million Mile Farce” to Washington … and back again.

As is the case with John McCain, Sodrel and by far the very worst president in American history – a graveside giggle by Warren G. Harding is permitted at this juncture – have been politically joined at the hip in ways that right-wingers would decry as blatantly pornographic if all involved were San Franciscans wearing leather and chains.

Did Sodrel vote against the interests of W even once during his appropriately shrunken congressional tenure? Perhaps, but the percentage of agreement surely exceeded 95% – and that’s roughly 90% too often.

What I don’t understand is why the GOP is not considering longer-term electoral interests in this race. Not that I want a theocratic Republican to win, but can any of our resident pachyderm apologists explain the tactical wisdom of Sodrel’s latest bid for Congress?

Perhaps Sodrel hasn’t yet pole vaulted past the suggested sell-by date as obviously as McCain has, though he’s rapidly gaining ground in the competition to be chronologically irrelevant. So, is the party just buying time by running a putrefying political retread in a season when the electoral (read: economic) climate probably is not conducive?

But why not let a “next generation” candidate get his or her feet wet this time, then be infinitely better placed to contest the seat in 2010?

Hill should win, and that’s good enough, even if it isn’t as good as it might be. The persistent problem for progressives in this moribund district is that Hill must always lean center-right to remain viable in a constituency that merrily views Attila the Hun as a flaming liberal.

Hill’s name came up in conversation recently, and I was asked, “Do you like him?”

My response: “I like him way more than Sodrel.”

Still, the fact that local Republicans regard Hill as Nancy Pelosi’s illegitimate sibling remains reason enough to reelect him, enthusiastically or otherwise.

I might add that I genuinely respect Eric Schansberg, the soon-to-be perennial 9th district Libertarian candidate, and find his views far more palatable than Sodrel’s. As a third party nominee, the educator and economist has the luxury to gleefully dissect the positions of both major party bidders.

Unfortunately, Schansberg’s fundamentalist religious orientation (in particular, a strident anti-abortion stance) effectively dissuades me from supporting him even if his presence in the race immeasurably enlivens the economic debate.

His isn’t so much an endorsement as a preference expressed with palpable resignation, and so I’ll be voting for Hill. I’ll continue to read Schansberg’s blogs and wish him further success in academia. Sodrel should retire from politics and focus on the family business, and the GOP should find someone younger and more capable.

Gee, thanks for asking.

More on religion, libertarianism ... and candidate Schansberg.

Baron Hill and Mike Sodrel aren’t the only repeat candidates in this fall’s Indiana 9th district congressional race. Just as in 2006, university professor Eric Schansberg will be running for the seat under the Libertarian banner.

A few days ago, I received a Schansberg e-mailing setting forth the themes for his campaign. It is repeated here verbatim, with my thoughts to follow.

----

In case you hadn't heard already, I've decided to run for U.S. Congress again -- in Indiana's 9th District, opposing Baron Hill and Mike Sodrel in their fourth race against each other.

We'll emphasize similar themes in this campaign:

-fiscal conservatism (I'm the only fiscal conservative in the race)
-bring our troops home (the other two support the status quo in Iraq)
-no taxpayer money for corporations or Planned Parenthood (the other two have voted for both)
-attention to over-looked issues like payroll/FICA taxes and Social Security
-increase the supply of oil to reduce the price of gasoline

We started much earlier this time and already had a lot of stuff done -- so we're much further along this time. For example:

-the website is up-and-running
-we have our printed materials in hand
-I've been in the newspapers and on TV and radio
-I've started to walk the business districts; and
-we have more cash-on-hand than we raised from individuals from the entire 2006 campaign.

If you're getting this email, you're probably a friend or acquaintance who didn't help explicitly in the last campaign.

-We'd love to have your help this time-- to donate (even $5 will buy ads) or volunteer or just to spread the word (if you know people in the district).

-If so, drop me a line or work through the website.
-If not, I won't bother you anymore with this!

Grace to you, Eric

p.s. If you haven't checked out my personal blog, SchansBlog, you might get a kick out of it!

----

If you follow the links above, you’ll find literally hundreds of words written by Schansberg about each of the highlighted platform points, and whether the reader agrees or disagrees, it must be readily conceded that there is a tangible effort throughout to deploy logic and reasoned argumentation. Speaking personally, it’s the very least I’d expect from a highly educated man, a teacher, an economist and a thinker. Surely a good many of Schansberg’s criticisms of the two major party candidates ring true.

And yet, again speaking personally, there’s a profound deal breaker in it for me, just one sentence among the many, but one that makes this longtime heretic cringe. The topic is Planned Parenthood, and Schanberg’s credo is, “Pro-life, Pro-adoption, and no taxpayer money for Planned Parenthood.” He writes:

“Given 21st-century science and my religious views, I am unabashedly pro-life.”

I find this reference fascinating even if it ensures that I’ll not vote for Schansberg this fall, because nowhere else in the candidate’s lengthy policy explications does he feel the need to cite his personal religious belief as justification for a position. However, when it comes to the “pro-life” argument, evidently Schansberg finds insufficient certitude that 21st-century science provide enough “evidence” to rule on the issue … and an appeal to his personal religious perspective is offered as something approximating insurance.

It strikes me that either this is intentional pandering to those for whom science is by far the least compelling reason to render an opinion on abortion (these being the same voters who visit the creationism museum in the northern Kentucky intellectual desert, Schansberg’s opinion of which may or may not be on record), or Schansberg himself explicitly recognizes that the same proof-based worldview used to make his other cases isn’t enough to make the pro-life one.

I’ve always liked the candidate personally and will continue to like him, and (not “but”) he is a rather extreme fundamentalist, albeit of an uncommonly erudite variety. Given this fact, shouldn’t we be asking him to explain the implications of his personal religious (read: apocalyptic) beliefs on those other issues that he has reserved the calculatedly public coolness of logic to expound?

I’ll readily confess to a measure of personal confusion here. How does the conceptual basis of the Libertarian position lend itself to this blatant appeal to religious authority v.v. Planned Parenthood and the “sanctity” of life? Does candidate Schansberg offer specific religious testimony that might clarify Libertarian planks on broader issues of fairness as they apply to health care, immigration and the war in Iraq … or is human reason sufficient to help us understand those policy conundrums? Why one and not the other?

I’m just curious.

Libertarians oppose the notion that government is the most efficient way to solve problems, while I tend to feel that the same shoe better fits religion. Then again, I’m an atheist who sees in the Libertarian’s presumed disestablishment the seeds of future persecution on religious grounds … a state of affairs that has been the norm throughout the history of Christianity. Perhaps I can be persuaded not to be concerned. Can Schansberg make his “pro-life” case without recourse to religious belief?