As the esteemed 17th President of the United States Andrew Johnson once said, "Someone cue up Gwen Stefani. I need some banana-related background music."

The case of Eric Holder and the Obama Administration transferring the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 9/11 trial from military court to civilian federal court sets quite a unique precedent.


None of these per se are wrong. But they do establish a different precedent and it doesn't appear the Obama administration has thoroughly thought through the ramifications completley (as evidence in the Lindsey Graham questioning of Eric Holder).

But what drives me most bananas about the KSM trial transfer can best be explained by another case Holder represented while an attorney at the very prestigious, DC-based firm Covington & Burling.

Let's get one thing straight, Eric Holder is a very smart man and a damn good attorney. You wouldn't so much as get your resume looked at for an internship at Covington & Burling with out being intelligent, gifted and talented, let alone land a job there. While at Covington & Burling, Holder represented Chiquita International Brands (you know, the bananas) in the first case of a major U.S. corporation being convicted of financing terrorism.

What basically went down was Chiquita paid $1.7 million dollars to the terrorist organization United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia as "protection money." According to the United States government, this money was used by the USDF to purchase arms and commit terrorist acts of violence.

So what does this have to do with KSM and 9/11? Chiquita is an American company based in Cincinnati, OH. As such, they are protected under the U.S. Constitution and are granted rights and protections.

• Chiquita was innocent until proven guilty.
• Chiquita was not required to testify against themselves.
• Chiquita deserved fair (and probably received fantastic) legal counsel.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others are not Americans. They have never been Americans. And nowhere in our Constitution does it grant rights to non-Americans. Nor can it. The jurisdiction of the Constitution ends at the United States borders.

So why if terrorism is an act of war, and the terrorists are not legal citizens of the United States, are we now establishing a precedent that they should receive the same rights and privileges as civilian Americans? What purpose does that serve?

Now I don't know if the Obama administration is just moving the trials so as to expedite the process of closing Gitmo, or if they are trying to establish new policy and precedent for all terror related cases. But I do hope they have thought through all of the ramifications of their actions, as it is doubtful one could argue their actions are making the US a safer and more just society.

The other day I broadcasted to the world via Twitter, Facebook, Google Wave, and Messenger Pigeon the important and life shattering news that I have decided to purchase a gun. The reasons for said gun purchase are quite irrelevant (unless of course your are my mom).

But the Facebook conversation that proceeded (below) inspired me to explain myself with a bit more detail.

Now I freely admit most of you will discredit me as a source on the topic of gun laws because I interpret the 2nd amendment to say that, "people of a state - whether militia or individual - should be allowed to own the same level of weaponry as the federal government."

Extreme, right? But let us remember the mindset of those who wrote the Constitution. Jefferson once said:

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

Now before you jump on me for being ignorant and throwing in all the accidental shooting statistics and other "vanilla, mothers running the world" arguments: stop. I have heard them. I know them. Hell, the President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence - arguably the largest gun-control lobby in the world - has been a long time family friend. I get it.

But here is what it really comes down to: Castle Rock v. Gonzales.

In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court decided in June of 2005 that we could not sue police departments for not protecting us in the event of violence committed against us, nor could we sue fire departments for not rescuing us. So the long and the short of it is: the Supreme Court says your safety is your responsibility and only your responsibility.

I don't think most Americans would argue with this per se. Most would acknowledge suing a police department after getting shot for not protecting you would be a ludicrous precedent. But for some reason we don't seem to make the logical conclusion that when in a dangerous situation, protection is our responsibility and should be taken seriously.

But let me be clear about this: Jesus doesn't give a damn about gun control (or taxes for that matter). When Christians call into the show and try to justify why "Jesus would be a republican," they always seem to lump in defending the right to bear arms as a "faith issue." It isn't.

And frankly, the only justification I could ever see against owning guns comes from the mouth of Jesus and that is "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Although he eventually did tell the Disciples it was time to purchase a sword to defend themselves).

Thus the way I see it is that Jesus is neutral on whether or not I buy a gun, and the Supreme Court wants me to. So it's time to go gun shopping because that Ginsberg scares the crap out of me and I don't want to cross her.


Enjoy the Facebook conversation on the topic below

What I am about to write should be viewed through the lens that I am a.) pro-life, and b.) support full equality for homosexuals and their relationships. I know most will find this an odd juxtaposition given the modern dialogue in politics, but you can read other posts as to why I feel this is right.

With that said, I think I found the the one thing that both of these often divisive groups can agree on: politicians really don't give a damn about either issue and are only feeding the division to get/stay elected.

Last week I was watching Barack Obama's Human Rights Campaign speech where he made the comment:

Now, I've said this before, I'll repeat it again -- it's not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans petitioning for equal rights half a century ago. But I will say this: We have made progress and we will make more. And I think it's important to remember that there is not a single issue that my administration deals with on a daily basis that does not touch on the lives of the LGBT community.

He continues on, admitting he hasn't done much to help gay equality, and throws the gay community a bone about ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (which should be ended), and promises to move the ball forward and for them not to lose heart. They've got a friend in Barack Obama.

How similar this is to George W. Bush (or Bush Sr, or Reagan) who promised to be a friend to the "pro-life" community, but what real work did they do for it? Enacted Mexico City? Appointed a pro-life Supreme Court Justice? Please! Just small bones that makes it look like action is taking place, but not really doing anything about it.

Well here's the dirty little secret that nobody in Washington or the media or the average American public want to admit: as a whole, neither political party cares about either one of these issues.

Sure Barney Frank cares as an individual politician cares about gay equality. And sure, Randy Forbes individually cares about protecting the unborn. But individuals don't change anything in Washington.

I said it back in October of last year that I didn't mind voting for Barack Obama despite him being extremely pro-choice because I was sick of abortion being a "wedge" issue / single-issue vote the Republicans knew they could motivate their base around. An October later I am saying the same thing about the gay equality issue, and wondering how long it will take those to realize the Democrats are doing the same thing.

The Democrats are no more a friend to the gay equality issue than the Republicans are to the abortion issue. It is all about getting and maintaining power. That's it. And until we put term limits on Congress and/or vote Congress out as easily as we vote them in, nothing is going to change.

So here's the question I pose to both: when are we going to stop being single issue voters that vote the party line when the party line isn't doing jack squat about what they claim to believe in so boldly.

I have a friend who - along with about 10-20 other people - started a bank 2 years ago. One afternoon I found myself in the office talking to him about what that venture looked like. Having been around startups my entire life, I have an understanding of starting a business. But a bank? That's a completley different story. So naturally I was quite curious.

The brief conversation included some points on banking regulation and the FDIC. I knew what the FDIC was before this conversation, but hadn't really given it much thought (probably like most Americans). Then we had the banking crisis of 2008 - exactly one year ago from today.

Anybody who had any kind of money at all quickly became familiar with the FDIC guarantee.

Amidst all the collapse in our economy - 401(k)s taking huge hits, hedge fund manager corruption, banking scandal after banking scandal, and finally a ridiculous, non-capitalistic, yet necessary bail out - the one thing that worked EXACTLY the way it should was the FDIC.

Most Americans had every confidence in the world that their money (assuming less than $250,000) was safe, protected and backed by the Federal Government. And you know what. It was. Even as IndyMac failed, and Washington Mutual and Wachovia and JP Morgan all collapsed, there wasn't chaos because the FDIC was there and functioning.

What does this have to do with healthcare?

This past weekend Allen pulled the comparison that we don't need the government running a healthcare company because what we would have is the United States Postal Service. And frankly, if you want something delivered guaranteed and to actually not be a drain on taxpayers, you and I both know UPS is the way to go. Rather, he focused on three things that should be changed.

1. Fat People - obesity killing healthcare costs
2. Old People - quoting that most healthcare costs are spent in the last couple months of life
3. Lawyers - Medical malpractice is a killer on doctor's insurance (which gets passed on to the patients) and also means tons of unnecessary tests (adding to the cost)

I think his analysis is fairly good. But it left me asking, ok, then what do you actually envision as the answer?

The answer to that question is the FDIC, only for healthcare.

We need regulation in healthcare.

The current situation right now is UPS only with two deepening caveats: with too little competition and a service we have to use.

The public option option is the USPS. It will surely go bankrupt, and ruin healthcare in the process.

The "FDIC" option is the route to go. Under it would include:

• Tort reform to curb malpractice costs.
• Regulation to allow for previous conditions to be covered.
• Allowing insurance companies to operate beyond state borders allowing for more competition but with minimal capital needs to start new operations.
• Holding insurance companies accountable to live up to what they promise to insure.
• A division to make sure the 10-20 million legitimately uninsured could be subsidized
• Requiring every citizen to have proof of health insurance (I know this isn't popular, but I am all for it).

But the actual insurance, and the hospitals, and the doctors, and the nurses are still all private companies. The regulation is there. The accountability is there. The improved healthcare for all would follow.

I once had dinner with Wayne Huizenga, Jr. The heir to the Blockbuster / Waste Management fortune and at that time a significant owner of the Miami Dolphins. During dinner someone asked Wayne about the Dolphins and a new stadium.

Wayne's response was great. "I don't really think it should be the job of the governments to be paying for the construction of sports stadiums."

I would agree and usually am against governments building stadiums. However if I were to support a government fitting the bill for a project like a baseball or football stadium, I would insist on them looking at the Fort Wayne Tin Caps Parkview Field project as a case study.

I have followed the news and construction of Parkview Field from Stephen Parker's blog AroundFortWayne.info. When I was back in Fort Wayne in July, I went to two Tin Caps game and the real world Parkview Field experience just re-confirmed my digital world expectations.

Let's compare Parkview Field (newly built, city funded) to Gwinnett Stadium (newly built, county funded).

Gwinnett Stadium is the home of the Gwinnett Braves. A Triple-A team (next in line to the majors) in a major market (essentially Atlanta). The Fort Wayne Tin Caps are a Single-A (far from the majors) in market #106.

Gwinnett spent $60 million to build their new stadium. Fort Wayne spent $30 million.

Gwinnett stadium is basically a glorified Single-A ballpark with some nice suites and a open entrance. The park has no character. It has no theme. And to compensate they put these gawd-awful bounce houses around the park to "entice the kids." There was no planning for traffic flow. There was no creativity. And it was basically plopped in the middle of an open field / woods.

Parkview Field is designed to Double-A standards and everything, and I mean everything is done thematically. Playing off the Johnny Appleseed team name, everything is related. Sections are called "The Tree Tops" and "The Orchard." Seats are green. It sits beautifully placed within the city skyline in the background. And it is bringing people downtown.

I was at an Atlanta Braves game the other day with one of the owners of Hardball Capital (the company that owns the Fort Wayne Tin Caps). I thanked him for doing the stadium right. His response, "well we got the city to pay for most of it." And even though that is in stark contrast to Huizenga's comment two years earlier, it didn't bother me because at least they spent $30 million right.

As a Atlanta Braves season ticket holder and a Fulton County tax payer, all I can say is that I am glad I don't live across the river in Gwinnett County.

As a someone born and raised in Fort Wayne and one day looking to move back there and run for office, all I can say is that I am proud Fort Wayne continues to do things right.

Tell me this is not where you would want to watch baseball, and your not proud of $30 million dollars of government spending.


© Stephen Parker - AroundFortWayne.info


© Stephen Parker - AroundFortWayne.info

© John McGauley

After blogging self-righteously about how much better I am than Barney Frank and Mark Souder on Sunday, I have decided to continue the self-righteous attitude and advise Henry Louis Gates and Barack Obama on what they can learn from me.

While driving back from Key West I got pulled over on I-75 just outside of Unadilla, GA.

I will say I was very disappointed in my actions that day, not because of my driving, but because I argued with the police officer.

My attorney (aka Dad) always told me, you never argue with a police officer on the road. Not only is the police officer "king out there," frankly, he is usually just doing his job and if he is wrong, take it up in court.

Most of the 20+ times I have been pulled over I have always followed this. But this time I did not.

With traffic flying by, I unfortunately argued with Lt. Colvin. And after the anger subsided a week later, I realized my error and felt deeply bad about it. So I found his email address and shot him the following email.

Lt. Colvin -

You might not remember me, but you pulled me over while driving up I-75 two Saturdays (5/23) ago in a Blue minivan allegedly going 85 in a 70. You are the only police officer in over 20 that I have been pulled over by in my life that I argued with him on the road. Typically all I do is turn on the interior lights (if dark), stick my hands out the window, honestly admit my speed when asked, and accept (and pay) the fine. For arguing with you on the road, I sincerely apologize.

I Google searched your name and came up with a page at catchingcriminals.com and I wanted to write and say thank you very much for your service in Iraq as explosives specialist. That is very brave work and am grateful for your service to this country. And even though I was one of the "criminals" you were protecting others from in this particular case, I very much thank you for your continued service to this country in law enforcement.

Take care out there!

Andy Borgmann

My situation with Lt. Colvin has some relatability to the Obama/Gates/Crowley affair.

What Gates Should Learn
I freely admit as a white male I do not know what it is like to be racially profiled. To my white brethren out there, if we think there isn't a "racial profiling" issue in this country, we are sincerely naive. That being said, in this particular case Gates over reacted.

I'll cut him some slack because he just got back from China and he was in his own home, but as Colin Powell said on Larry King, even if you think you are being racially profiled, you don't argue with an officer trying to assess the situation.

I have an anti-authority streak in me that can rival just about anyone. So I get Gates' inclination to argue. But that is not the time.

What Obama Should Learn
But the real disappointment in this whole thing is Barack Obama. Not because he wanted to find a teaching moment for the country, but because he did so out of ignorance of the situation and then didn't know how to apologize afterward.

Obama and I share a lot more than just a birthday. We share the arrogant belief that we are smarter than most and we have a tendency to stick our foot in our mouth. But what Obama fails to grasp is that if you are going to be like us, you better get damn good at apologizing.

In a true apology, you don't make excuses and you don't passive-aggressively try and make your point again - both things that Obama did in his "apology." I didn't use my apology letter to Lt. Colvin to reiterate my "perceived innocence." No. I apologized and thanked him for his service.

The Beer Summit
The most interesting thing about the whole story with Lt. Colvin and I is, about a month after I wrote him the email, I got a Facebook friend invite from him. So we are now "friends" and had a "beer summit of our own," and we didn't even need the pressure of the media to do it.

This past Friday I went to an Atlanta Braves game with the infamous AllenHuntShow.com commenter LC. If you don't know who LC is, you need to be reading the blog more often. He's pretty much second only to Erik (warning: NSFW) in his "nemesising" (on a side note Erik was invited as well, but couldn't make it last minute).

We all know that I love Erik since I have blogged about that. But I too, legitimately love having LC around. He's a staunch atheist/agnostic, and doesn't agree with much of what Allen or I have to say. But he is more than welcome here and I have very much loved the friendship that has developed because of the show.

More on that in a second.

I was reading Fort Wayne Observed the other day and came across a blog post on Barney Frank calling out Mark Souder for his anti-drug stance. The interview of Barney by Esquire included the following statements:

ESQUIRE: ...who's against it?

BARNEY FRANK: Well, Mark Souder from Indiana, who's very much a proponent of the drug war.

ESQUIRE: When you talk to Souder about it, what does he say?

BARNEY FRANK: You don't waste your time on people with whom you completely disagree.

In full disclosure, 1.) Mark Souder went to my church in Fort Wayne, IN and 2.) I can't wait for the day to beat Mark in an election for Indiana's 3rd Congressional District (I'll save why for a blog on another day).

But I digress.

Now the irony is that for the first time ever, I think I actually agree with Barney Frank if you read the entire interview. But what Barney and Mark equally don't understand is that using the excuse "you don't waste your time on people who you completley disagree [with]" is what is wrong with American politics, and frankly, what is wrong with American culture altogether.

Not only this past week did I go to a baseball game with LC, but my Porn Producer buddy Mike South sent Allen and I an interview with Scott Janke. Highlighting another relationship where I have serious disagreement on certain topics, but one where we have kept the lines of communication open because of mutual respect and a higher pursuit of truth. Just like LC. Just like Erik.

Surrounding your life with people who you only agree with leaves one with an incredibly myopic view of the world that is worse than just ignorant, it is damaging. Especially in leadership positions.

I would highly encourage Mark and Barney to follow the example of LC and I: go to a Nationals game, have a beer, and treat each other like human beings.

Who knows what kind of country this could be if our politicians - and each other - lived that way on a regular basis.

Much like my post on the Virginia Tech Shooting two years ago, the Iran conflict was too raw and emotional to say what needed to be said until now.

Now that things have subsided a bit, I feel more comfortable saying what I have thought all along: Barack Obama handled the Iran Election Conflict amazingly well. Historians will look back at that and say one of the most genius things America ever did in handling Iran was to not do a single thing during the election conflict.

But first a Scrubs episode to highlight why:


I am going to be obnoxious and pull the "I've been the Middle East card, and I am guessing none of the rest of you have" to say that what most Americans fail to understand about our "presence" in the Middle East is how those who we are "fighting against" wield our disdain for them against us.

Like Scrubs - it doesn't matter what we say, it gets turned around and presented as propaganda against our case. This isn't just true in Iran and Scrubs episodes but in my own life as well.

At my previous job I had two older gentlemen who, well, let's just say didn't appreciate anything I had to say or thought. They made life incredibly difficult for me. But what was worse was that they made progress for the church impossible.

What I learned - but unfortunately didn't practice as well as Obama - is that even if I had the greatest idea, even if I was right, the best thing I could do was not get involved. Would I encourage other more "neutral" parties to discuss and attempt to influence these two gentleman's perspective: absolutely. Should I have actively continued to jump into a fight I knew I couldn't win and ultimately made things worse: no way.

Most of our problems in the Middle East are in large part due to our involvement in things we feel obliged to jump into, when in fact it only makes the situation worse. Then when we actually have an opportunity to do something good about it, we back out. Thus leaving the average Middle Easterner frustrated and angry with us.

The movie Charlie Wilson's War (although about Afghanistan and not Iran) is a phenomenal example of this.

As usual, I was extremely proud of Senator Richard Lugar. It is because of his bi-partisianship, non-grand standing, non-crowd pleasing, straightforward and educated approach to politics is the reason he is the only member of Congress that shouldn't be voted out.

Unlike everyone else - especially Republicans - clamoring at Obama's perceived weakness regarding Iran, Lugar came out and said what needed to be said: America needed to stay the hell out of the Iranian conflict.


Iran and the Middle East is about a generation away from true reform. I have seen it with my own eyes. And the last thing America needs to do is intervene and jack that up. Patience is a virtue, and American needs to practice it.

There are two things I like in politicians: brutal honesty and class. There are two things I seem to never find in politicians: brutal honesty and class.

Karen Handel is the Secretary of State of Georgia, but (hopefully) will be our next Governor. Up until this week, I knew Karen to have a reputation of brutal honesty that is quite rare with politicians. There isn't that "politician / used car salesman" sheen that accompanies most of the politicians I have known and worked with through the years.

However it wasn't until this week that I realized not only is she refreshingly honest, but she is a real class act.

Karen came to the Wayne 60 event that we put on to celebrate Wayne Farr's 60th birthday and to raise money for the children at Murphy-Harpst children's home.

At the event we talked about Dan and Marilyn Quayle - I being from Indiana and can't spell and as Karen being Mrs. Quayle's Deputy Chief of Staff (which I didn't know). She was quick to defend the old boy and told me a little back story to the whole potato fiasco I had never heard.

But this past week I got a letter from her in the mail. Big deal. I know. I thought the same thing at first. Politicians send letters all the time. Or better put, politicians have their interns send letters all the time. But as I continued to read what I thought was a cursory letter penned by an intern and probably signed by one too, I got to the part where she mentioned the 30.59 miles I rode.

This wasn't announced at the event (I came in WAYYYYY behind everyone). This meant that she - or admittedly someone on her staff - read the blog I did on the event showing the picture of my speedometer and my comment about making it 30.59 miles.

So even if an intern did write said letter, I still will keep it along with the letter President Ford wrote to our family after my Grandfather died, as an example of true class from a politician.

As I think more and more seriously about entering politics everyday, I am grateful for someone like Karen showing how one can truly be brutally honest and class-filled and still thrive.

Thanks Karen!




For those curious, here is the letter Gerald Ford wrote my Grandmother when my Grandfather died. President Ford and my Grandfather were football buddies at the University of Michigan and would stay with my Grandfather when he'd come to Fort Wayne (before he was President).

I have been waiting to do this blog for four years now. I knew one day it would come. I just never thought the complaint would be due to me (ok, I sort of thought it might).

Allen and I have been on the air for over four years and up until last week we have never had to use the DUMP button due to an obscene comment made on the air. That all changed last week.

Last Sunday Allen picked up a caller and the first words out of his mouth were "Fuck You" and then hung up. We were actually out of delay, so that went out live over all of our affiliates.

Then just last night, a caller from San Antonio (first night on that station by the way) was talking about something and accidentally said "shit" on the air. We were in delay, hit the dump button, and all was good. No worries.

The real surprising thing was the only real complaint we got over the last two weeks wasn't with the F-bomb being dropped, but rather the fact that when I talked about the bike race I completed for charity, I made a reference to how I could see how Lance Armstrong got "ball cancer" due to the way my crotch felt after riding for 30 miles.

One complaint! That's it. But as Family Guy puts it, for every complaint received has to equal one BILLION people offended:



I freely admit I am not concerned with obscenity. I don't really see a case to be made in the Bible that "fowl language" is really amoral. And don't even get me started on how as a culture everyone gets way too offended way too easy - especially Christians (and gays).

But beyond that, why is it the government's job to legislate this stuff anyway? Why did we decided that the public airwaves were owned and controlled by the government to begin with? And as delivery options become less dependent on "public airwaves" (satellite communication, cellular communication, hardwired communication), I have to ask myself, should the FCC and "obscenity" laws really become obsolete?

And as always, it isn't the situation we find ourselves in now that I am too worried about, but rather the precedent it establishes that will allow for the expanse of power:



Before anyone asks, no, we didn't get any complaints from the FCC (yet). I just found the Family Guy stuff to be pretty profound when I first saw it back in November of 2005 and have just been waiting for a "personal" story to commentate.

Enjoy the FCC song: