Trees

This is a short post, in response to one seen on Next Door lamenting the "butchering" of trees.

I wholeheartedly agree. Please don't butcher your trees.

My house has two (formerly) beautiful trees in the front yard: a gum tree and a maple tree. They were both topped, and they now look ridiculous. Across the street, and throughout the Meadowood Park neighborhood, there are numerous other trees that have been topped. Not only do topped trees look ridiculous, the topping of the tree is a cruel act to the tree itself, as it essentially forces the tree to grow brand new branches, at awkward angles, contributing to the likelihood that those branches damage the essential structure of the tree and kill it.

By way of contrast, trees that reach a certain age and are not topped are absolutely beautiful. There is a gum tree just east of Meadowood Park that is simply glorious.

So, to my neighbors, I beseech you to please stop topping their trees.

I fully recognize that my neighbors are entitled to trim their trees in any manner they see fit, including topping them. After all, their property is their property and anyone who has read this blog knows my predilections regarding property rights. Nonetheless, one of the first great legal lessons I learned is that "can" does not mean "should."

More on Speedway Public Transportation

And I don't mean a train or even a bus system going through Speedway.

Rather, and I've talked about this before, I think that designating Winton Ave. as a pedestrian-friendly, bike-friendly corridor, from Lynhurst to Crawfordsville, would do wonders for connecting each end of Speedway to its counterpart. In addition to the basic designation, I think that painting the actual roadway, as well as some signage, would be beneficial as far as notifying motorists. Finally, it would be absolutely essential to have some manner of controlling the traffic light on Crawfordsville from a bicycle on Winton . . . something akin to a pedestrian button.

To ride a bicycle from Meadowood Park to 10th/Main doesn't take much more than 10 minutes, tops. It is a simple ride, and there is no reason that someone should have to drive from the Meadowood Park neighborhood to Big Woods. This is easy enough to accomplish, would barely require any public funds, increases quality of life for Speedway residents (and is a targeted measure to improve the quality of life for Speedway residents, i.e. we aren't spending a bunch of money to make someone else's life better without any return thereupon), and as a bonus just happens to promote public health and be good for the environment.

I fail to see the downside.

Speedway Permitting

I had an interesting discussion recently regarding the issue of getting permits to do home improvement in Speedway. A few thoughts:

• With respect to contractors, I am not too worked up about the idea that Speedway's permitting process may be a bit antiquated. After all, it is a contractor's job to ensure that all permits are properly obtained. While it may add a bit in cost to remodeling projects, I don't see that the public necessarily owes it to professionals to make their jobs easier. After all, as much as I would like the courts to be a bit less antiquated, I hold myself out as someone who knows how to navigate them. It's not up to the public to pay to make my job easier.
• That said, I think that when certain "public" systems (i.e. courts, permitting, etc.) become too cumbersome, they then impose costs on the public writ large. For example, if the courts are so inefficient that it takes 5 years for your civil complaint to be heard, that is a significant cost to the litigants; this without even considering the fact that attorney fees tend to escalate as litigation drags on, litigants may be entitled to pre-judgment interest (or in the alternative, inflation erodes the value of the relief obtained in court), etc. As to permits, if it becomes unwieldy to get a building permit in Speedway, the cost of household improvements will escalate relative to greater Indianapolis, the housing stock in Speedway will be depleted, and the value of all of our homes will depreciate.
• Clearly, there ought to be a balancing of interests in this regard.

With respect to "DIYers" or "Weekend Warrior" home improvement types, however:

• We (and I use that term very loosely) are NOT experts in obtaining proper permits.
• We are doing it ourselves, probably, because we are looking to save a few bucks.
• The last thing we want is to be told during the late stages of a project that we need to start over because, for example, a doorway is 3" too narrow. Not being a contractor, I don't know the specifics of building code.

I have always found the public officials in Speedway to be very conscientious of the burdens they are placing on the citizenry, and I applaud these officials for addressing this issue before it becomes too cumbersome, as referenced above. I believe that they are earnestly attempting to strike a proper balance between, on the one hand having an efficient and easy to understand permitting process, and on the other hand making sure that structures built in Speedway are safe, code compliant, etc.

Too often I find myself being critical of things on this blog. As the old saw goes, the news never reports when the plane lands safely, right? Only when it crashes. This is a welcome opportunity for me to write affirmatively about the efforts undertaken on our behalf by our public officials.

Bravo!

A Central Problem in our Healthcare Debate

Sometimes I feel like all sides in the healthcare debate are talking past each other. Take this recent piece in The Hill. This was penned by a business lobbying group, The Job Creators Network. Leaving aside the absolute arrogance of calling oneself a "job creator" (I'm a lawyer, does that make me a "rights creator?"), this piece exemplifies the problem with our discourse. A few excerpts:

The high cost of insurance is a massive problem for small business that cuts across industries. 

If the high cost of health insurance is "a massive problem" for businesses (who actually reap the profits of the enterprise), what kind of a problem is the high cost of health insurance for the employees of that business? Why is it that the value of our healthcare dollars is rarely discussed, only the quantum of dollars spent? To put a fine point on it, I can decrease my beer spending on race day to $0 by simply not drinking any beer. Likewise, I could reduce my healthcare expenses to $0 by simply not going to the doctor, ever. Merely reducing total expenditures simply focuses on half of the equation and utterly ignores the fact that healthcare is something that every person will need at some time in his/her life.

The article references "increased choices" as follows:

These plans have the potential to lower health-care costs and increase choices for small businesses and their employees, who have been among hardest hit by rising health-care costs.

Sure, lower health-care costs are good. However, when self-titled "job creators" start talking about ways to "increase choices," I can't help but wonder whose choices they want to increase? Surely, I would prefer increased choices as to how much the staff at my law firm gets paid . . . why not have the choice to pay them nothing and keep the money myself? The point is that "increased choices" sounds good in theory, but if the actual choice involves choosing between coverage for a heart attack or coverage for colon cancer, because you can't afford both, is that really a choice? Is that the definition of freedom? As I asked months ago on this blog, if one of my children has a curable ailment and does not get treatment because that treatment is unaffordable, is that a tragedy or the glory of the free market in action? I don't think I've hidden my views on that question. 

 

A Day in the Life

This:

GREAT MILLS, Md. – A student with a handgun shot two classmates inside his Maryland high school Tuesday before he was fatally wounded during a confrontation with a school resource officer, a sheriff said.

And this:

I am done arguing about gun control and the 2nd Amendment; those with whom I would argue approach this from not only a different set of assumptions about human behavior and cause/effect, but also from a different set of facts. There will be no agreement between myself and those who believe that any restrictions, whatsoever, on the ownership of firearms violates the 2nd Amendment. 

I am just sad and want to go home and hug my kids.

Public Education - Amen!

As both readers of this blog know, I resided in Ft. Wayne for quite some time. Regrettably, over the years, Ft. Wayne has devolved into FoxNewsland, but mercifully some common sense remains. Take, for example, this fine letter printed in the Ft. Wayne Journal Gazette just today:

As a parent, former teacher and guidance counselor, and current school board member, I was pleased to see so many parents engaged and involved in the recent reinstatement of honors classes in Fort Wayne Community Schools.

While we all may view this as a victory, we must remain vigilant because the attack on public education continues in Indiana.

We have seen public dollars educating more children under the guise of “school choice.” We have seen an attack on teachers by stripping them of their unions, evaluating them with students' test scores and keeping their incomes stagnant for an incomprehensible amount of time.

We have been comparing apples to oranges as the legislature and State Board of Education constantly change how we grade schools and which high-stakes tests we will use to do this.

We have seen poorly performing charter schools be forgiven their debts while many public schools are struggling to sustain financial stability due to budget cuts and tax caps.

Parents have seen the strength a committed, determined group of parents can have. They've seen the power of persuasion work in their favor.

I commend them for their efforts, but I encourage them to keep the momentum going by becoming more informed and more active.

Our public schools should be the pride of our communities and should continue to provide a strong, equal education to all students. It's time to start paying attention. It's time to put an end to the attack on public education.

Parents, you can do this! Continue your fight – not just for your children, but for all children so that they, too, can have equal access to a great public education.

Anne Duff

Northeast Indiana Friends of Public Education

Bravo!

Generally, when I quote a letter on this blog, I don't include the name of the writer. However, this is just so powerful I believe that the writer deserves credit.

Also, ironically, I was listening to the radio this morning and came to learn of a state law that requires public schools to sell surplus buildings to charter school operators for $1.00. That's right: $1. This includes, as was explicitly discussed in the story, Broad Ripple H.S.

I'm no real estate expert, but I suspect that the enormous building, right at the end of Broad Ripple Ave., that sits on numerous acres, is worth more than $1, particularly given that a 3-BR, 2400-sq. ft.  in Broad Ripple sells for more than $220,000.

I find it particularly galling that IPS, which is undergoing significant budget problems in the face of consistent cuts from the state legislature as well as a shrinking enrollment, is unable to alienate that building for its market value. To underscore the double standard, recall, as indicated in the letter quoted above, that charter schools consistently have loans from the state forgiven.

Folks, these are our schools. We are the ones responsible for them; we are the ones responsible for protecting their budgets. School children can't afford well-heeled lobbyists; they depend on the members of the community to advocate on their behalf.

A Fool's Errand - fact-checking FoxNews

I couldn't help myself. I know I should be better than this; I know I should "turn the other cheek." 

I just can't.

I read a column today on FoxNews.com (God help me!) entitled "Here's Why Progressives Hate Betsy DeVos." I knew before I even clicked the link that this column would be chock full of bad-faith arguments.

A few fine examples of the type of sophistry that FoxNews has oh-so-masterfully put on display:

Although Secretary DeVos did struggle to answer some questions on the spot, the substance and tone of the criticisms are inaccurate and unfair.

None of this should be surprising. Secretary DeVos, a Christian grandmother and philanthropist who has spent her career trying to improve the quality of education for poor children, has been criticized and mocked relentlessly. And she is the only Cabinet secretary who travels with a cadre of U. S. Marshals because of death threats she’s received.

So, to be clear, she "struggle[d] to answer some questions on the spot" but the criticisms of the head of public education in America were unfair. Why? Apparently because she is "a Christian grandmother and philanthropist who has spent her career . . .". 

This is clearly the combination of an identity appeal and the fallacy of post hoc herego pro erego propter hoc. In other words, because Betsy DeVos is a Christian, any criticisms of her must be because she is a Christian. 

Note also that the column fails to say precisely what she "has spent her career" actually doing to try "to improve the quality of education for poor children." (Hint: she has been advocating vouchers, despite the poor results in her home state of Michigan).

Interestingly, the column also throws in the death threats . . . for reasons I can't quite fathom. Maybe to demonize opponents of DeVos and her ilk of privateers? Certainly, if FoxNews could connect these death threats, no matter how tangentially, to liberals, they would do so (see the connection they managed to make between Iraq and 9/11).

Though I could continue to criticize the bad-faith arguments presented in the above quote, I need to move on lest this blog post exceed 10,000 words.

So why, as “60 Minutes”’ Lesley Stahl put it, has Secretary DeVos become the “most hated Cabinet secretary?”

One reason—as opinion pieces in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal have argued—is that some of the Democratic party’s most deep-pocketed and powerful interest groups are teachers’ unions who realize that they will no longer have a near-monopoly on education.

A few points:

• As a former public school teacher,  I did not realize that my roughly $40,000/year salary rendered me part of one of the Democratic party's "most deep-pocketed and powerful interest groups." I wish someone would've told me! Maybe we wouldn't have had the bipartisan push for the past two decades to blame teachers for, literally, every one of society's problems. Further, I can't help but note that FoxNews repeatedly characterizes teachers as a well-funded, unionized interest group, while simultaneously referring to arbitrage bankers as "job creators." Interesting priorities you have there, folks!
• I also note, in this quote, an assumption that teacher's unions couldn't possibly actually, you know, care about kids' education. They must be concerned that their monopoly on education (lucrative as that is!) may disappear. Again, I fail to see FoxNews' concern as to monopolies when we discuss NFL owners, telecom giants, Facebook, media consolidation, etc. NO! That's saved for those nefarious teachers who instead of taking jobs in other sectors, took jobs at a reduced rate of pay in order to help kids and teach. Huh.

Moving along:

Another reason, as the New York Times’ Ross Douthat argued, is that the Democratic party’s upper-middle-class suburbanite constituency  - who are big supporters, in theory, of public education – bristle at the idea of DeVos’ charters and vouchers being attractive to poor and minority families (who in their view belong in public schools) or families with ideological or religious convictions that differ from their own.

Well, I can only speak to what I know; let's review what I know.

First off, Ross Douthat is part of the New York Times' cabal of "conservative" columnists. His attribution of bad traits to Democrats, as the house organ for Republican talking points, is utterly shocking! (Side note, the "liberal NY Times" has a cabal of conservative writers; FoxNews has one moderate liberal - Juan Williams - and shouts him down seemingly every time he opens his mouth).

Also, "upper-middle class suburbanite" sounds kind of like Carmel, or Fishers, or Zionsville, or Avon, or Center Grove. How many of these places are represented by Democrats? It certainly doesn't describe Andre Carson's gerrymandered Democratic district, does it?

Further, this notion that it is the liberals who bristle at allowing others to have "ideological or religious convictions that differ from their own" is quite rich. Was it liberals championing a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage? Was it Democrats who prioritized ties to the party over know-how when rebuilding Iraq? Was it all the Democrats in downtown Indianapolis who recently attempted to prevent a mosque from being built?

I mean, I've been criticized by conservatives for being too open to "ideological or religious convictions that differ from [my] own." People have said, about me, "he's so liberal, he won't even take his own side in an argument." 

Ever heard a conservative insulted like this? Me neither.

According to the writer, Bruce Riley Ashford, here is why Betsy DeVos is despised:

Secretary DeVos wants to liberate American education from encroachment by federal bureaucracy

I don't despise her for that. I thought American education needed to be liberated from the federal bureaucracy for the entirety of my teaching tenure: 2003-2010. Note the years where I taught. When I spoke, from roughly 2003-2009, about "liberating American education from encroachment by federal bureaucracy" I was derided by the so-called Education Reform Crowd (of which DeVos is a leading member) that I was an "apologist for the status quo" who "didn't want to improve kids' lives." Leaving aside how insulting that was, I can't help but note the change in tone and wonder why.

Bad faith argumentation.

Secretary DeVos emphasizes freedom of thought.

Sure. Freedom of thought. From this crowd. Again, and I believe this was addressed above, I don't recall any Democrats directing federal agencies to refrain from using certain well-worn phrases.

she wants to empower financially-disadvantaged families to send their children to whichever school they deem best

Raise your hand if you believe that the "Education Reform" crowd has any intention of allowing you to send your children to Park Tudor. Raise your hand if you believe that the so-called "voucher" DeVos and company are proposing will be worth the roughly $20,000/year it costs to send your child to Park Tudor. 

I tend to believe that the "voucher," if widely used, will be but a state-sponsored subsidy to religious schools that won't come close to covering the cost of attendance. Sure, people like religious schools when they're Catholic or Episcopalian, how will people react when they're strict Islamic madrasas or Church of Cannabis Schools? (Funny thing about that Constitution . . .).

Secretary Devos does not come to her job as a career politician or an educational ideologue. She comes as a lifelong education advocate and philanthropist who has given tens of millions of dollars to public and private educational institutions.

Once again, "They couldn't possibly disagree with DeVos on policy. They must hate her because she has money and cares!" Furthermore, Betsy DeVos is NOT an ideologue? (Betsy DeVos, billionaire founder of the American Federation for Children, the nation's leading school choice advocacy program, is not an ideologue, no matter what the dirty liberals say!)

A final point about this: I note that this is clearly a defense of DeVos and her "policies," such as they are. Interestingly, the piece is largely devoid of actual policy analysis. How have DeVos' preferred policies worked where they've been tried? I am not asking for anecdotes; I'm asking for data.

Do voucher students perform better than students who don't receive vouchers? Do charter schools perform better than traditional public schools?

It's almost like the author of the article either doesn't care to know these stats or hasn't bothered to find out. Huh.

Proponents of “school choice” say that voucher programs – which allow parents to use state education funds to enroll their children in private schools – promote learning by providing access to different types of schools and by fostering competition that motivates public schools to improve.

But there’s no evidence that voucher programs significantly increase test scores, according to a new report by Stanford Graduate School of Education (GSE) Professor Martin Carnoy.

At best, they have only a modest impact on high school graduation rates, Carnoy found – and the risks they pose outweigh any advances.

“The evidence is very weak that vouchers produce significant gains in learning,” Carnoy said. “They also carry hidden costs, and they’re distracting us from other solutions that could yield much higher returns.”

I mean, it's not as though I found this by simply googling "voucher student achievement." It's not as though this was in the list of results either:

Advocates of school choice breathed a sigh of relief last month when a pair of new studies showed that voucher programs in Indiana and Louisiana were performing better than prior research had suggested. But they shouldn’t get too comfortable.

The news that most students recovered the ground they lost when they first enrolled in these programs after three or four years is obviously welcome. But it is unlikely to satisfy critics, who will rightly note that students who returned to the public schools after a year or two lost significant ground, and that so far no statewide voucher program has shown significant benefits for the average participant. To the contrary, the last four voucher programs to be rigorously evaluated—including those in Ohio and Washington, D.C., as well as Indiana and Louisiana—have all shown negative or decidedly mixed effects.

I could go on, but I am getting tired of rebutting this know-nothing FoxNews s*#t thrower.

Judicial Review

This is the notion that the Constitution ultimately means what the Supreme Court says it means. For those desiring a history lesson undergirding this concept, look up the matter of Marbury v. Madison (1803). In a nutshell, judicial review of laws is not enumerated in the Constitution. The Constitution enumerates the judicial power under Article III, which states in full:

Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Please note that this does not state that the Supreme Court or any other court has the right to determine whether certain laws are constitutional or otherwise. It merely states that the Supreme Court, and its inferior courts, have jurisdiction over all cases arising under the constitution or the laws of the United States. It wasn't until 1803, approximately 15 years after ratification, that the Supreme Court declared that it had the power to declare laws unconstitutional.

All of this is to point out that judicial review is not pre-ordained. Congress controls the money and the Executive controls the guns. The Courts control neither. It is only through the acceptance of this authority by other political branches that the Courts continue to have an effect. 

Hypothetical question: if the Supreme Court, in 1861 in the midst of the Civil War, had told President Lincoln that suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional and ordered him to remedy the situation, would he have? What would have happened if he hadn't?

Second hypothetical: if the Supreme Court, at the height of WWII, had ordered FDR to dismantle the Japanese internment camps, would he have? What would have happened if he didn't?

Third hypothetical: Following Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ordered schools desegregated. Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus deployed the Arkansas National Guard to "support" and "defend" the segregationists who attempted to prevent the desegregation of Little Rock Central H.S. by the Little Rock 9 in 1957. What if Pres. Eisenhower hadn't federalized the Arkansas National Guard and sent in the 101st Airborne Division? What if Arkansas Gov. Faubus had openly defied a Supreme Court order and nothing happened?

These hypotheticals point out that obedience to judicial orders will only happen when the other branches voluntarily do so. The above-three hypotheticals could have happened differently than they did.

In light of that, I quote this in closing:

the current relative equilibrium in which elites in both parties support strong judicial review and refrain from using the tools the Constitution gives them to attack the courts is not an inevitable feature of American constitutionalism. Merrick Garland is the canary in the coal mine: elite polarization and the fact that once Kennedy retires the Court is going to be strongly and consistently aligned with one partisan faction or another will have major consequences for the federal judiciary. Barring a sudden, unlikely partisan realignment, short-staffed courts are going to become endemic in times of divided government. Manipulation of the size of the court and other major clashes between the courts and the other branches are possible. We have only scratched the surface of the impact of the McConnellization of American constitutionalism.

Criticism of Democratic Educational Policy

I don't think that me saying I believe Republican education proposals lack merit will shock anyone. I taught in a public school through the "No Child Left Behind" debacle, and I recall Mitch Daniels' imposition of "right to work" on teachers long before it was imposed on the Indiana economy as a whole. 

However, I do plenty of pieces on this blog beating up on Republicans. Suffice it to say, I believe that their education proposals are terrible. However, when it comes to education, Democrats are only a little bit "less bad."

Case in point:

The bad news for Democrats who found DeVos’ performance appalling is that these principles have been a crucial part of their party’s education policy for 17 years. Broadly speaking, the regime of compelling competition between schools by creating charter-school or school-choice programs and by rewarding those whose students do well on standardized tests was launched at a federal level by the No Child Left Behind Act; the NCLB was co-sponsored by Ted Kennedy and passed the Senate in 2001 with 87 votes. When Barack Obama became president, he created the Race to the Top program, which the Washington Post described at the time as a “competition for $4.35 billion in grants” that would “ease limits on charter schools” and “tie teacher pay to student achievement,” i.e. direct extra funds to already-successful schools.

Of course, this piece was published today in response to Sec. DeVos' disastrous 60-minutes performance. However, just because Sec. DeVos is clueless should not excuse those who have supported these awful policies over the course of the last generation. We see it in Indianapolis as well, with the rhetoric surrounding "failing schools" and characterizing public schools as "government schools."

Without addressing the merits of NCLB or Race to the Top, there can be no doubt but that the only difference between Democractic and Republican educational proposals has been that Republicans want to dismantle teachers' unions and public education more rapidly than do Democrats. 

That's about it.

On Teachers - A Challenge

Dear Speedway:

We already live in a very unique and wonderful place. Speedway is unique for so many reasons that this post will only scratch the surface, but one aspect in particular comes to mind: Speedway Public Schools.

If you want to know why a house at 25th and Moeller is worth considerably more than a house a mile north of there, you need only look at the quality of schools.

In the summer of 2014, I was in the market to buy a house after I got a new job in Indianapolis. My family is a one-income family, and my income was modest. Moving to Carmel or Broad Ripple wasn't in the cards, even if that was what we wanted. However, Speedway was certainly an option, and why wouldn't it be?

After all, Speedway has excellent schools and low crime.

We should double down on what is positive and unique about our community. So here is the challenge: to keep Speedway schools the envy of the region, Speedway Public Schools should pay its teachers more than any other district in Central Indiana. Full Stop.

I would like to see Speedway Public Schools ("SPS") be the desired destination for the best teachers in Central Indiana.

Having worked as a teacher, I understand the dynamics of hiring to a degree. In areas such as Carmel, the schools tend to hire their own alumni. In areas such as Decatur Township, where I formerly taught, they also try to hire their alumni, but there isn't a large supply of graduates who proceeded to become licensed teachers, so they have to hire "outsiders." Many of these "outsiders," myself included, considered themselves to be professional, mercenary teachers.

I want the best of the best mercenary teachers to want to teach in Speedway Public Schools. If they are successful at IPS, Decatur, Wayne Township, etc., I want them to be applying for positions in Speedway en mass.

Imagine if for every teaching opening, for years on end, Speedway had a who's who list of top-quality teachers applying. Imagine what that would do:

• Improve the prospects for our children;
• Improve our home values;
• Improve the prestige and quality of our community;
• Differentiate our community

Let's bear in mind that public school teachers don't make that much. Paying $2,000/year more is a big deal when we're talking about a salary of $40,000.

So there it is; my latest challenge to our town council. The pocket book was wide open when it was time to subsidize Wilshaw's parking garage. Can we open the wallet for our children as well, or is that move preserved for well-funded developers and their expensive lobbyists/lawyers?

More on Teachers

Following up on my post the other day about unlicensed teachers in Indiana, it is notable that teachers have had to go on strike in W. Virginia in order to get a 5% raise instituted over the course of the next few years.

Let's not kid ourselves: the W. Virginia teachers went on strike so that their "raise" (such as it is) at least has a puncher's chance of keeping up with inflation.

A former teacher myself, I found this infographic rather interesting:

The blue line represents the national teacher salary average; the red line underneath represents Indiana teachers' salaries. The numbers are adjusted for inflation, and you will note that a teacher's salary has lost 10% of its value/spending power since 2010.

This is simply unacceptable. I read another interesting take on the relative lack of popular interest in this increasingly troublesome problem in The Baffler. I would encourage anyone to click through and read the entire thing. A few snippets:

Why do we attend to an older white man’s naïve belief that coal’s comin’ back while we ignore an educator’s frustrations about miserable working conditions and inadequate salaries? Why can we review the causes of deindustrialization for the umpteenth time while refusing to discuss what has been sacrificed at the altar of bipartisan tax cuts?

...

the lack of coverage reflects the structural anti-labor, anti-union bias embedded in the consensusphere. The ownership class in the media certainly sympathizes with their peers in other industries. We wouldn’t want people to read too many stories about strikes and start getting ideas, would we? Striking teachers today, striking reporters tomorrow, and before you know it Americans might start asking why their wages have remained stagnant for forty years.

On (not) Working and Popular Discourse

I hear people talk about how people want "free stuff" from the government all the time. Every time I indicate that, for example, healthcare or college tuition is exorbitantly expensive and either the state or federal government can and should do something about it, I am generally greeted with a response along the lines of "well, the government shouldn't have to provide everything for you." (Note, this is generally from the lips of a Baby Boomer, who paid for health insurance that was less expensive than county taxes and paid their college tuition with money earned at their summer jobs, but I digress).

Anyway, I saw an interesting map today on Vox and thought I'd share it:

When we talk about who is not working, I think this map is important to bear in mind (darker areas equate to more joblessness; map on the left is 1980, map on the right is 2015). Please note that the joblessness in this country is concentrated principally in four main areas: Appalachia, the Confederacy, the Southwest, and the rural Northwest.

I can't help but notice that joblessness is not concentrated all that much in the major metro areas but instead in areas that are, generally, more rural. I think this is to be expected, given the shift to automation in the past generation. Nonetheless, I found the distribution of those not working to be enlightening.

Any thoughts on why workforce participation in these areas is so low?

Unlicensed Teachers

So, I was on a plane the other day and got really annoyed with that know-it-all elitist pilot, telling everyone what to do and insisting that the plane had to be flown his way. I mean, COME ON, I've flown on planes for years!

Interestingly, after I got off the plane, I went to go see my doctor; once again, some know-it-all elitist insisting that his way was the only way to care for the human body. Again, this is my body; nobody knows it better than me!

Amazingly, later in that day, I had a client who absolutely ignored my legal advice and found himself in legal trouble; utterly avoidable legal trouble. I guess he determined that he has lived under laws for his entire life and doesn't need some fancy pants, overpaid, elitist lawyer telling him "what's what." After all, the guy made a bunch of money by doing something utterly unrelated to law, so he must be qualified on legal matters too, right?

Perhaps my sarcasm is shining through?

It is in light of such sarcasm that I present you the latest and greatest from America's Worst Legislature:

A new bill aims to remedy Indiana’s teaching shortage

Well, reading this, I was relieved. It's about time! What are they going to do? Restore collective bargaining rights? Raise wages? Limit workloads? Do something, anything, to entice people to devote their lives to this noble profession?

by allowing public schools to fill up to 10 percent of their teaching staff with unlicensed teachers.

Look at me in my naivete!

I can't help but notice that our legislature believes that financial incentives work to entice wealthy people to work or invest more, yet this logic is wholly absent when it comes to teachers.

Leave it to the smartest man in the legislature to put his finger on the issue here:

“We don’t have enough qualified teachers and we don’t want to pay to have enough qualified teachers, so we create a teacher facsimile,” said Democratic Rep. Ed Delaney of Indianapolis. “This is a very big problem and we’re not addressing it.”

The article continues:

The bill also targets hard-to-staff positions by allowing teachers specializing in special education, science, technology, engineering or math to receive additional pay.

So, to be clear, this bill allows for superintendents to arbitrarily staff schools, up to 10% of the faculty, with "teachers" who aren't licensed to, you know, "teach." Then, to add insult to injury, it allows the superintendents to decide to pay some teachers more.

Well, I see no way that this could go bad (there's that sarcasm again). My only hope is that here in Speedway, the Town Council insists that (a) every teacher in Speedway public schools is licensed; and (b) Speedway Public Schools pays more than any other school corporation in Central Indiana. Perhaps we can make this a concrete demand of our elected representatives?

 

 

On Abortion (God Help Me)

I vowed that I would be focusing more on Speedway-specific matters on this blog, and I intend to return to those matters shortly. However, I thought it would be enlightening to give a short post on my views regarding abortion.

As an initial disclaimer, I've never had an abortion. I'm a male. I couldn't have one even if I wanted one. 

Second disclaimer, I am pro-choice.

Third disclaimer, I don't think I've ever met someone who has had an abortion; at least I don't recall ever discussing it.

Fourth disclaimer, I am quite sure I've never met someone who wants to have an abortion.

Now, on to my views:

I think Roe v. Wade got it right. For those who have never read Roe, here is the basic outline. In the first trimester, the government has no interest in regulating birth control; such regulation is a function of a woman's relationship with her doctor. In the second trimester, the government has a compelling interest in the health of the woman. In the third trimester, the government has a compelling interest in the health of the unborn child. Here is a good summary:

For the stage prior to the approximate end of the first trimester, the abortion decision must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician, and may not be criminalized by statute.

For the stage subsequent to the approximate end of the first trimester, the State may regulate abortion in ways reasonably related to maternal health based upon the State’s interest in promoting the health of the mother.

For the stage subsequent to viability, the State may regulate and even proscribe abortion, except where necessary for the preservation of the mother’s life, based upon the State’s interest in the potential of the potential life of the unborn child.

This is consistent with common law. In the 18th century, when the Constitution was written, abortion of an early pregnancy was either legal or a misdemeanor prior to "quickening." Given that the Constitution was written as a continuation of English common law and not as an abrogation of it, I think that Roe was properly decided and provides a significantly better standard by which to adjudicated constitutionality than the subsequent Planned Parenthood v. Casey standard prohibiting the state from imposing an "undue burden" on women who seek this procedure. As but a single criticism of Casey, I ask what counts as an "undue burden," and how can a state legislator from, say, Speedway, IN, determine whether a burden to access to abortion is "undue?"

Anyway, this is a legal argument for me and not a theological one. I fully recognize that for many pro-life adherents, I completely miss the point. Nonetheless, I continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was properly decided and provided a good analytical framework.

Finally, and I shouldn't really have to write this but I will anyway: "constitutional" is not synonymous with "good policy," nor is "unconstitutional" synonymous with "policy I don't like." The two are separate issues, and the merits of abortion, birth control, etc., are not addressed in this post; rather, the constitutionality of abortion is addressed.

Projection 101

As many people know, the NY Times has utterly prostrated itself before the God of Balance and hired some fairly, shall we say, sub-par columnists of late. Included therein is notable climate-science denier Bret Stephens. I suppose the Times wants to ward off the inevitable conservative "bias" attacks, not that it would work. (Incidentally, have you ever noticed that supposedly "liberal" mainstream media outlets routinely have Republican/conservative voices, whereas "Fair & Balanced FoxNews" rarely, if ever, has an actual "liberal" on to defend the liberal position?)

Anyway, Bret Stephens put on a master class in projection in his column today. He started off by applauding Mona Charen, who was booed at CPAC a few days ago, for her courage in telling conservatives that they are hypocrites for supporting Donald Trump and Roy Moore while lambasting Democrats who took money from Harvey Weinstein (no mention of Steve Wynn, conveniently). Mr. Stephens laments the intra-party war going on in the Republican party between the (vast majority) portion of his party that supports Trump, and the Never Trumpers. He then turns to the Democrats:

a parallel contest is taking shape within the Democratic Party, most visibly in the rift between traditional liberals and the social-justice warriors of what used to be the far left.

Oh really? Do tell!

One side believes in the power of reason, the possibility of persuasion, and the values of the Enlightenment. It champions social solidarity for the sake of empowering the individual, rather than creating a society of conformists. 

This is interesting, coming from a conservative house organ. Which Democrats "believe in the power of reason, the possibility of persuasion, and the values of the Enlightenment"? Well, Mr. Stephens doesn't grace us with that opinion. However, he gives us this turdburger:

As for the other side, it thinks it knows what’s True. It considers compromise knavish. It views debate — beyond its own tightly set parameters — as either pointless or dangerous. And while it sees itself as the antithesis of Trumpism, it is, in its raging intolerance and smug self-satisfaction, Trumpism’s mirror image.

Mr. Stephens, when liberals own AM radio and fill it up, 24 hours/day, with talk-radio hosts lambasting any Democratic politician for agreeing, in any way, shape or form, on any issue, with Republicans, then maybe you'll have a point. When a Democrat publicly states that the party's #1 goal is making Pres. Trump a one-term president, you may have a point. 

As of today, you are merely projecting Mr. Stephens.

My advice to traditional liberals is not to repeat the establishment Republican mistake of not taking the threat of populist illiberalism seriously, and of not fighting it fiercely. The fabric of an open society is more frayed than most people realize, and it is coming unraveled from more than one end. What happened to the G.O.P. in 2016 could happen to the Democrats in 2020.

Take your own advice Mr. Stephens. Talk to your right-wing friends and tell them that their 8 years of race-tinged criticism of Obama, their 8 years of apologetics for George W. Bush, their ongoing praise for Donald Trump is devaluing their brand and opening it up to racists and demagogues. 

Until then, I will take advice from people who haven't made the worst possible decisions for most of my adult life.