Find me a Jury!

My Wife just got in interesting call from a pollster asking her about her attitudes toward, Price Waterhouse, SemGroup, Tom Kivisto, and energy/oil companies in general. She was asked whether or not accounting firms should be financial liable to shareholders for fraud/corruption that they either knew about and didn’t report, or should have known about. Then they wanted to know about her education level.

It sounds to me like Price Waterhouse is getting ready to be sued. I’m guessing that someone is testing the attitudes and opinions of the potential jury pool for a suit in Tulsa. Semgroup went bankrupt so go after the accounting firm right? It worked against Arthur Andersen...

Issues with Tulsa’s Police helicopters

I read on David Schuttler’s blog My Tulsa World that both police helicopters were down. He asked, “Do we need a 3rd police helicopter now?”

I knew that the older helicopter was down. Here is a picture of it taken apart.

This ship was carrying the load of two helicopters in the interim period where we had sold the old one and purchased the new one. As such, it had several deferred maintenance items including the 4000 hour inspection and engine rebuild. This is a major maintenance event, requiring substantial down time.

Having one ship down for the 4000 hour event meant that our new helicopter was carrying the load of both ships. The risk that is run when only one ship is operational is that the second ship might go down, and that is what happened.

I spoke with Officer Jason Willingham, and he told me that there some sort of tail rotor issue. For flight safety reasons, they needed to ground it to make sure that it did not turn into a dangerous problem. Bell has inspected the tail rotor drive shaft which turned out not to be the issue. Unfortunately, more inspection is required before they know what actions are needed, but the current plan is to place it back into service on Monday for in-flight diagnostics.



The engine rebuild on older helicopter is complete and is waiting a few final parts that should arrive this Monday. After a few final inspections it should be in the air hopefully with in the next week or two. Once the newer one has the rotor issue resolved and it checks out, we should be in good shape.

Government Cheese a Hedge Against Inflation

Filed under disturbing, I was just paid a visit by my future-self. He told me several horrible things.


1. Even though I despise Apple and have nothing but contempt for the iPhone, I eventually break down and buy one. I guess it was the only way to get back to 2009 from 2032. With the iPhone 25 if you want to go back in time...There's an app for that!

2. Obama is still the president. Obama finally did what George Bush could not...destroy the Constitution. Great....

3. He did give me some investment advice so it wasn't all bad. While the Dollar does eventually collapse under the weight of out of control spending, it turns out that Government Cheese becomes our new currency. Government cheese becomes a tasty hedge against inflation. It consists of a variety of cheese types and other ingredients such as emulsifiers blended together, and comes in the following denominations: cheddar cheese, Colby cheese, cheese curd, and granular cheese.

4. He told me that I really needed to resist the urge to eat my savings, aside from not really making any financial sense, Government Cheese isn't particularly healthy (some things never change I guess). Under Obamacare there is over a 26 month wait for heart bypass surgeries. I'll start a cardio program now I guess.

5. Of course the most disturbing thing of all was the fact that I'm still bald. Screw bypass surgery, if Obamacare doesn't cover Propecia, what is the point of living anyway?

So there you go...grim news from the 2030s. Has your future-self come back with iPhone in hand? Tell me about it.

Should Sullivan get a free pass?

My congressman, John Sullivan, just got back from rehab for alcohol addiction at Betty Ford. In his announcement he asked for support and prayers, and my initial reaction was to do just that. However, as his time at Betty Ford started to close, I had quite a different reaction. A few days before his treatment was complete, he missed the debate and vote on Cap and Trade. I was rather upset that he was not there for that. It turned out that it did not matter because the margin of victory was such that one vote didn’t matter.

Nevertheless, I could not quite shake my feeling of anger. I read Michael Bates’ column on Batesline hoping that he could show me why I'm being unfair, but it didn't help.

There are some things Sullivan has done that I disagree with, but the vast majority of them, in the grand scheme of things, have been of no real consequence, so I don’t hold it against him. The truth is, as Bates pointed out, he is a good conservative who tows the line on conservative fundamentals, which I can appreciate.

Bates stated that, “It would be wrong to push John Sullivan out the door because he sought rehabilitation for alcoholism.” I agree with that in principle. I am floored that he pushed himself to rehab without being forced to go. He did it because it was the right thing to do, for himself, and for his family. It seems hard to be angry with someone for doing the right thing.

I think what continues to gnaw at me, isn't so much that he wasn’t there for the Cap and Trade bill, It's that he put the first district in a position of not having a representative for 30 days in the first place. I cannot fault him for doing the right thing. However, eventually doing the right thing doesn’t make up for starting off on the wrong foot to begin with.

Perhaps it is unfair to hold a public official to high biblical standards, but this whole situation has got me thinking about my political pragmatism. Should I support someone who falls short of my standards merely because it is good for the party, or because I don't like the other guy, or because I feel like I need to be pragmatic?

No! Unfair or not, these are the standards that people seeking political office should be held to, for a whole host of reasons. I understand that the verses I am going to share are talking about people in positions of leadership in the church, but the Bible was written during a time of totalitarian dictatorship. People did not get to choose their political leaders. These are good principals, therefore, I am going to view all candidates through the lens of 1 Timothy 3:1-10. (with a few changes of my own to make it relevant to politics...again understanding that this verse it talking about church leadership)

1 …Whoever aspires to be an overseer elected official desires a noble task.

2 Now the overseer elected official is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.

4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect.

5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church his constituents?)

6 He must not be a recent convert new to politics, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil opposition.

7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.

8 In the same way, deacons political candidates are to be worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain.

9 They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith conservatism with a clear conscience.

10 They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons elected officials.

Based on these standards, perhaps Sullivan should not have been representing us in the first place. Perhaps most, of the folks in politics shouldn’t be representing us. Nevertheless, this leads me to my point. When we start ignoring our principals and start standing on the shifting sands of pragmatism and party first, we will end up with the representation we deserve.

I am not sure whether or not I'll continue to support Sullivan after this. I need to think and pray about it. He has done a courageous thing, and I applauded him for it, but I do not think he is entitled to a free pass.

Baldwin for Office Probably Congressman

Alec Baldwin might run for Congress! I was so excited by the prospect, that I made this campaign video for him. I mashed some inspiring audio from Mr. Baldwin with some music by Whitney Houston. It's really great, and I hope it helps him get elected. I can't wait for Alec to be introduced as Congressman Baldwin!

**Warning Mr. Baldwin drops the S bomb and the GD bomb a few times...so watch out**

Council Database Request....Denied

I recently received a request for a feature to my Tulsa City Council Database; a complete record of every vote of the council. This would be an amazing feature. I can imagine a ton of different queries that I would run if I had that data in my database. It would be pretty sweet.

However, the amount of work it would take to compile, normalize, and enter that data into my DB would be immense. Joseph Bojang suggested that I had a lot of time on my hands, but I don't have that much. Fortunately access to this data does not require a freedom of information act request...It just requires that you have a lot of time on your hands.

Go to the Tulsa City Council Meeting Search page, and look up past meetings. All the data you need/want is contained in the meeting minutes. It's all there...unless you want to go further back than 2007, then perhaps it would require not only a ton of time but also a freedom of information act request.

My Tulsa City Council Database

Using this City of Tulsa link as my source for data, I have created a relational Database in MS Access to define the make up of every council since 1990. I created it to help me glean insights into the amount of experience on each subsequent council after the 1st one in 1990. When I get back from vacation, I’ll look into exporting this into MySQL if anyone is interested.

I did a lot of the data entry by hand, so it is possible that there are errors, report them to me at roemermanonrecord at gmail dot com and I’ll correct them. Also if you want to take a stab at adding your own features, I’ll fold them in to my version…just email me your changes.

Right now it only has data about the council in the DB, but there is no reason why I cant add data regarding budgets, tax packages, censuses data, really anything that is relational to the council…we will work on that in future releases.

Here is the current layout of the tables, queries and some assumptions and constraints.
Tables:
* Council - defines councils from 1990 - today. from swear in date of the council until the swear in of the next one
* Councilors - defines the 40 councilors who have served over the past 19 years
* Council terms - defines the terms of each councilor (hard to look at since it must be linked to the Councilors table)

Queries:
* Council Makeup By Council Num - will tell you who was on each council. Enter 10 for the current council, 1 for the first one
* Total Combined experience By Council - Will tabulate the total experience (in years) of that council at the end of the term.
* Total Council History By Council Num. This is the same query as the previous but it doesn't add up the terms of service. It will show you who is on the current council, and what previous councils they have served on.
* Total Council history - Gives you all the past councils and their makeup all on one big listing
* TotalExp by Councilor - gives you the total experience of any councilor (in years), by name (must be exact)

There are a ton of other queries one could run, this is all I have for now.

Assumptions and constraints:
I credit the current council with an extra year of exp, assuming that they will finish out the term

If you want the avg length of service for any given council, you will have to calculate it yourself. There are several councils that had more than 9 councilors (due to deaths or resignations) so you have to determine what to divide by yourself.

No term is exactly 2 years...They are usually 1.9 years...sometimes a few days over 2 years.

[UPDATE]
Per Jeff Shaw, I've added a query that lets you look up all the councilors from a particular district. (Councilors by Dist)

Staggered Three-Year Terms #1

Once again it is almost time to vote for City of Tulsa Charter Changes. One of the changes that Tulsans will consider will create staggered three-year-council terms. I am opposed to this charter change, and over the course of the next two or three posts, I will be encouraging Tulsans to vote against it.

This charter change affects the terms of office for Tulsa City Councilors in a few basic ways:

Firstly, it increases the term to three years as opposed to the 2 years it has been since 1990.

Secondly, it staggers the elections for the 9 council seats so that every year there will be 3 seats up for grabs. It would group districts 1, 4 and 7 in one group, 2, 5, and 8 in the next, and 3, 6, and 9 in the last group.

Thirdly, and probably the most confusing of the consequences, deals with the initial terms of these groups. In order to stagger these groups successfully, the first election will set up terms of 1, 2, and 3 years. For example, I live in district 7 so if this passes, my councilor will have a 1 year term, then one year later I will vote for my councilor again, but this time for a 3 year term.

Are you still with me? Good, on to my first major problem with this charter change, the staggering. What is the purpose of this staggering? Presumably it is to protect you from yourself. Under the current system, all the seats are up for grabs at the same time. Heaven forbid if the silly electorate tossed out the entire council in favor of freshmen councilors. If we were inclined to be foolish enough to toss the entire council out on their collective…seats…there would be no one left that had any experience. Wouldn’t that just be a travesty? This staggering keeps us from taking such drastic and stupid action. It protects the integrity and continuity of the council.

At least I presume that is their thinking. The hubris required to come up with this plan is astonishing. It does not protect us from ourselves, what it really does is protect the council. It makes them freer to take positions that are contrary to the will of the people, with only a 1 in 3 chance of incurring the immediate wrath of the citizens of Tulsa.

Regardless of how you feel about protecting the integrity and continuity of the council, a brief look at history shows us that this change is unnecessary. It seems to ignore how Tulsans have historically voted for their councilors. Except for the very first Tulsa City Council way back in 1990, every subsequent council has enjoyed a core group of senior counselors with prior experience.

Taking the past three councils as examples proves my point. The current council only has two freshman councilors (Bynum and Gomez). It has three sophomore councilors (Westcott, Eagleton, and Troyer), and the rest have served three or more terms in office! (Patrick, Henderson, Martinson, and Christiansen) Assuming that these councilors serve the rest of their term, when it comes time to vote on this charter change, our current council will have over 41 years of combined experience!

This council is by no means an anomaly; the previous council had two sophomore councilors, two with three more terms and over 30 years of combined experience

The council before that? 42 years of combined experience and only three freshman councilors.

I could go on, but I won’t; you can see the data for yourself by downloading this MS access Database I created to help with my research. I have a few other problems with this change, but I’ll get to them in another post.

The bottom line, that this change is not necessary. If it aint’t broke? You got it…don’t fix it.

My Thoughts on Michal Jackson’s Death

I have mixed feelings about Michal Jackson's death yesterday. I have a few thoughts and questions. Let’s ask ourselves who died yesterday? Was it a musical genius, an icon, or a tormented soul with an identity crises and daddy issues?

If you are really sad today let me ask you a few questions.
Strip away the fame; strip away the amazing contributions to music, or even the wildly bizarre behavior, and what are you left with? Just one of the tens of thousands of people that died from cardiovascular related issues yesterday. Are you sad for all them?

Michal Jackson was an icon, It’s sad because we lost a musical genius…right? No I don’t buy that. I contend that Michael Jackson, the legend, and the Musical Icon was lost to us many years ago. Strip away the fame, the amazing contributions to music, but this time keep the wildly bizarre behavior, and now it becomes harder to feel sad at his passing.

Of course this is not to say that I don’t recognize that it is sad when people die, or that it is always painful to a family when someone dies. I am talking about whether or not I am going to invest my emotions in the death of a stranger. In this case, it is hard for me to feel sad. I see an individual with deeply troubling emotional issues, and self destructive tendencies, who was extremely bizarre and strange. I see someone who I would not want to associate myself with and someone in who I was quite honestly repulsed.

What I see is a man with no real support base, no one to ground him, no one to check him and set him back on the correct course. I see him surrounded my other self-absorbed people, who wanted a piece of his fame and glory. I see a man who took his carrier and flushed it in favor of self destructive and bizarre behavior. That is what is sad.

Let me ask you, how sad you were when Anna-Nicole Smith died? Ohh well that is different. Is it? She was disturbed, self-destructive, and bizarre. What is sad about Anna-Nicole is how she got that way, not so much that she died.

What if Lindsay Lohan died today, would you be busted up about that? Or might you take a more jaded tac and say, “She was self destructive and...” Do you see my point?

I’m not glad he is dead, please don’t get me wrong, but I’m not sad either, and I’m not about to idolize the man he became. I was repulsed by the man that died yesterday. I feel sorry for him, but I wont grieve is loss.

TulsaPolitico

If, for no other reason than to see an extremely slick layout, here is a new blog you should checkout : TulsaPolitico

Joseph Bojang just started his blog and intends it to be about, "politics with a hint of Tulsa history"

I'm looking froward to see what he does with it.

The Maintenance of a Free Society

Tyson Wynn showed me a video of Milton Friedman on The Open Mind, hosted by Richard D. Heffner. It originally aired on December 7, 1975.

Friedman's message strikes a chord in my soul, and it's something I'd like to share with you. Friedman's premise is that when the Government tries to do good with your money, or steps in to correct some wrong they will not do nearly a good a job as if the free market takes care of it. Whether it's the federal government using our tax dollars to bail out and ultimately purchase GM, or little old Tulsa taking money from downtown property owners to build a ballpark it's a lesson we need to learn.


Here are some of the best quotes in my opinion...or skip to the end and watch it for yourself...

I want people to take thought about their condition and to recognize that the maintenance of a free society is a very difficult and complicated thing. And it requires a self-denying ordinance of the most extreme kind. It requires a willingness to put up with temporary evils on the basis of the subtle and sophisticated understanding that if you step in to try to do something about them, you not only may make them worse, but you will spread your tentacles and get bad results elsewhere.

You know, another answer to your question as to why you seem to have the drift to collectivism is along these lines. The argument for collectivism for government doing something is simple. Anybody can understand it. If there's something wrong, pass a law. If somebody is in trouble, get Mr. X to help him out.

The argument for a free -- for voluntary cooperation for a free market is not nearly so simple. It says, you know, if you allow people to cooperate voluntarily and don't interfere with them, indirectly through the operation of the market, they will improve matters more than you can improve it directly by appointing somebody. That's a subtle argument, and it's hard for people to understand. And, moreover, people think that when you argue that way you're arguing for selfishness, for greed. That's utter nonsense. The people who are in positions of power in a political hierarchy are also selfish and greedy.
...
One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results. We all know a famous road that is paved with good intentions. The people who go around talking about their soft heart -- I share their -- I admire them for the softness of their heart, but unfortunately, it very often extends to their head as well, because the fact is that the programs that are labeled as being for the poor, for the needy, almost always have effects exactly the opposite of those which their well-intentioned sponsors intend them to have.
...
I think there's been one underlying basic fallacy in this whole set of Social Security and Welfare measures. And that is the fallacy -- this is at the bottom of it -- the fallacy that it is feasible and possible to do good with other people's money. Now, you see that fallacy -- that view -- has two flaws.

If I want to do good with other people's money I'd first have to take it away from them. That means that the welfare state philosophy of doing good with other people's money, at its very bottom, is a philosophy of violence and coercion. It's against freedom, because I have to use force to get the money.

In the second place, very few people spend other people's money as carefully as they spend their own.
...
...government is an institution whereby the people who have the greatest drive to get power over their fellow men, get in a position of controlling them. Look at the record of government. Where are these philosopher kings that Plato supposedly was trying to develop?
...
I'm not in favor of eliminating government entirely. I think government has grown all out of proportion to its scope. Where are we going? I believe that that depends on us, that that's not in the cards, it's not -- we are masters of our own destiny. But if you take the road that we have been on, we are heading towards a destruction of our free society and towards a totalitarian society.

We are unfortunately headed down the route which Chile has already taken a century to its end, which Britain has taken much farther than we are. Now, I -- we still have time to avoid it. But we will not avoid it unless the people of this country recognize the danger and take very difficult and important steps to set a limit on the extent to which they are going to permit government to interfere with their lives.
...
I say thank God for government waste. If government is doing bad things, it's only the waste that prevents the harm from being greater. And the waste of government has two very important elements. Number one, if government were now spending the amount it spends -­which is 40% of our income -- governments Federal, State, and local in the United States have total spending which equals 40% of total national income -- if they were spending that efficiently, we'd be slaves now. And in the second place, the waste is so obvious that it arouses a counter­movement on the population at large, people are disillusioned with government and it increases the chance that they will recognize where this road is taking them and get off that train before it goes all the way.

And queue the liberals who will entirely miss the point of Friedman's argument, and make some goofy comment about how the economy is is such a sad shape right now because of the free market, despite the fact that the economy is really screwed up because of bad government policies, in 5...4...3...2..and Go!

Randy Brogdon on The Chris Medlock Show

I'm very excited that State Senator Randy Brogdon is seeking to be elected as the Governor of Oklahoma. I'm a huge supporter of the senator because he is a Constitutional Conservative. Randy Brogdon is running on a platform of limited efficient government, effective government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, and the expansion of freedom.

On the Tuesday, June 9th edition of The Chris Medlock Show, Chris had Randy as a guest. If you have not had the opportunity to hear Senator Brogdon speak, I strongly encourage you to listen to the Chris Medlock show which can be found here. (about half way through the show)



"I will be a danger to the status quo" - State Senator Randy Brogdon

ROR Podcast #4

Please to enjoy this latest Roemerman On Record Podcast. This time I discuss Tulsa City Councilor GT Bynum's comments at the last Tulsa City Council regarding the new Downtown Assessment that will be used to fund the Ballpark.

I play clips of the councilor's statements at the meeting, and respond with my commentary. At the bottom, and embedded in this post is the full video of the councilor's speech during last Thursday's meeting. Also, because not everyone is going to listen to this podcast, and because I want this content to be indexed by Google, I'm posting a few of Bynum's quotes with a the transcription, or the Reader's Digest version of my commentary...




.................................................
“I can only speak for myself, the Mayor didn’t railroad me into anything…I didn’t get railroaded.”

So you were satisfied in the process imposed by the Mayor? You were satisfied that property owners wouldn't really get the chance to protest the amount of their assessment or to argue the benefit to their property? You were OK with that process? You flushed it out, and understood it, and approved it? You think it’s fair to impose a fee on people, a fee that they didn’t ask for, and then trick them into thinking that they could not protest when in fact they could? You knew that they would have to go to court to get justice? If you weren’t railroaded and were satisfied with the process, then what does that say? Or if you didn’t fully understood those ramifications, and voted yes, what does that say?

.................................................
On graduated assessments...

“If we did have that graduated level of assessment, rather than setting a minimum level of benefit, that we’re talkin’ about here, Uhh, instead of having people concerned about whether or not they benefit as much as anybody else in the IDL, we’d be talking about, the guy whose on one side of the dividing line from the other, and gosh that guy’s building is 20 feet away from me, I’m having to pay more but we probably benefit the same. I think you’re never going to have a perfect system, and again that’s why I support this proposal.”

So, you have determined that the guy that is the furthest from the IDL, the guy that benefits the least will have some minimum level of property appreciation. Whatever that benefit is, it’s worth 6.5 cents per square foot. What I hear you saying is that because it’s hard to have a perfect system, and because it might create situations where one bar owner pays one fee and the bar owner that is 20 feet away pays a different amount, and because that might get a bit messy, you’re in not in favor of even trying to make it equitable?

If the minimum level of benefit is worth 6.5 cents per square foot, what is the level of benefit to the guy right across the street from the ballpark? What is that worth? If we were to agree that everyone benefits, and everyone should have to pay because of that benefit, then don’t we owe it to the person of least benefit to determine what the person of greatest benefit should have to pay? Because it‘s hard, you aren’t in favor of even trying? I completely reject this line of reasoning.

.................................................
“The citizens of Tulsa shouldn’t expect other people to pay for everything for us. We need to be willing to step up and pay our fair share….I also think, that along those lines, it’s about responsibility on our part. We’re asking those that will benefit from the property appreciation that will come with this, I believe, to pay their end”

How is it responsible for the government to force downtown property owners to pay for the ball park? How is it responsible for the government to take from one group and give it to another, because it thinks it knows how to spend it better than they do? I would not call that responsible or fair, I would call that tyrannical!

As a Republican, and supposedly a conservative, what do you believe the proper role of government is councilor? Is it to build ball parks? Where in the US constitution, the State constitution, or the City charter does it say that Tulsa should build a ball park?

If it is a good idea, and investors want to do it, let’s pass a TIFF, let’s provide tax benefits, so that investors can build a ball park. Private investment, for private benefit, that is the free market, that is conservatism!

You seem to imply that when a property owner sees the value of their property appreciate because their neighbor makes an investment, that entitles the investor to demand money from that property owner whose property value increased. That is so abhorrent to me that I can hardly understand how you could possibly be for this assessment and still consider yourself a conservative. I completely reject this assessment. I reject it because the assessment is flat and not graduated; I reject it because property owners haven’t been treated fairly and allowed to protest this before the council; and I reject it because I'm a conservative and a believer in limited government and in the free market. I wholeheartedly reject the notion that public monies should be used in such a manner.
.................................................
“If we want to continue to find reasons to oppose development in downtown, and people want to vote that way, that’s fine, but that’s not how I’m not going to choose to vote.”

Who is opposing downtown development councilor? Who is standing up and saying, “I’m opposed to downtown development?” No one. Pretty much every other councilor said they were for, at lest the idea of a ball park. Personally I think the idea of a downtown ballpark is good…just not publicly funded. That last line was so disingenuous to the reality of the situation, and why people are opposed to this assessment, that I cant believe you said it.
.................................................

Again, those are only some of the quotes, and an abbreviated version of my commentary, I encourage you to listen to the podcast in it's entirety for full effect.