Sweetheart Plea Deals (& A**hole Prosecutors who Get Them)

Certainly I'm not the only one who noticed that the Johnson County Prosecutor has pled guilty to a number of crimes, including felonies, and has been removed from his official position. Good riddance! I find the law enforcement apparatus to be sufficiently despicable (deplorable, anyone?) without having a known, convicted wife beater as a prosecutor. (Apologies . . . apparently it was his fiance).

Anyway, in reading through this story, I couldn't help but notice that this guy was charged on April 15, 2019 and signed a plea deal (that supposedly expired at 9:00 a.m.) on April 15, 2019.

This is a lot like the Scott Harris case and begs numerous questions. First and foremost, why is it that the powerful get advance warning of their impending charges and have a plea deal drawn up before they're even charged? How does that happen? It seems pretty obvious to me that there was "collusion" between the prosecutors and their "targets" in both cases to ensure that the "indiscretions" of the powerful were quickly swept under the rug.

I also can't help but note the difference between how these powerful men are treated and how, for example, educators (or professional athletes, for that matter) are treated when they get busted for OWI. Before anything is proven, and often before formal charges are even filed, these poor people have their faces plastered in the newspaper. For example, here is a prototypical "newsblotter" crime story.

Clearly my feelings on prosecutor tactics are unambiguous.

Why Judicial Appointments Matter

From Slate today:

Before Donald Trump nominated him to the federal bench, John K. Bush was perhaps best known as an anti-gay blogger who spread birther conspiracies. Now he is a judge on the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. Bush was selected, in part, because of his conservative views on reproductive rights, including a belief that abortion is a tragedy on par with slavery. On Thursday, he transformed those views into law, upholding Kentucky’s “informed consent” law in an opinion overflowing with charged anti-abortion rhetoric.

The Kentucky law at issue is extraordinarily invasive. It requires abortion providers to perform an ultrasound, generally using a transvaginal probe for pregnancies of less than nine weeks, on all patients seeking to terminate their pregnancies. The provider must then describe the fetus in detailed terms, pointing out its organs, and play the sound of its heartbeat. Patients can only avoid this sound and description if they cover their ears and make noises to drown it out.

I am trying to identify what state interest this serves. Does it simply make the Kentucky state legislature feel better to know that they got to put some poor woman (who no doubt will wrestle with the decision to terminate her pregnancy for the remainder of her life) through a series of mental tortures?

Again, from the article, quoting a woman who testified regarding her experience during this "description."

While the staff at the abortion clinic did all they could for me, this experience was nothing short of torture. I had to lie on an examination table, with my feet in stirrups. My belly was exposed with the ultrasound gel and abdominal probe on it while we saw images of our sick child forming on the screen for the third time that day. Before the doctor even started the description, I began to sob until I could barely breathe. My husband had to calm me down and the doctor had to wait for me to find my breath.

The description the doctor provided was perhaps the most devastating part because although our baby was profoundly ill, he had healthy organs too. So, the doctor was forced to describe—and I to hear—that he had a well-developed diaphragm and four healthy chambers of the heart. His words were unwelcome and I felt completely trapped. I closed my eyes. I twisted away from the screen. The doctor and staff repeatedly apologized for making us go through this, but their compassion could not ameliorate my pain.

This is what is at stake when we talk about judges and reproductive rights. I had a commenter tell me that, even with Justice Kegstand Kavanaugh on the bench, Roe v. Wade will not be overturned. My commenter can be forgiven for not realizing that Justice Kennedy substantially limited Roe in the matter of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which simply held that a state can't put "unreasonable restrictions" on a woman's right to family planning services, including abortion.

What amounts to "unreasonable," I can say from years of experience in litigation, is very much in the eye of the beholder.

Two final points:
1. Remember, a government that has the power to prevent you from getting an abortion is a government powerful enough to compel you to get one. Most pro-choicers, myself included, don't revel in the notion of terminating pregnancies. For us, the issue is who gets to choose to terminate a pregnancy or not. Apparently many pro-lifers believe that is a choice best left to the government (ironically, so many of these so-called pro-lifers label themselves "small government conservatives," but I digress).

2. Further, insofar as people argue about "states rights," just remember that if Kentucky can do this, New York or California can pass laws allowing abortion up to the day (or hour, or minute) before birth. When you devolve responsibility to the states, you can't then micromanage how they handle such responsibility.

My Favorite Punching Bag

Our esteemed statewide shame joke of an attorney attorney general Curtis Hill, as both of my readers know, is rather far down my list of esteemed attorneys in this state. (Indeed, I hold the state's best defender of child molesters in higher regard than Curtis Hill, but I digress).

As has been discussed on this blog previously, Curtis Hill is in some hot water with the Indiana Attorney Ethics and Disciplinary Commission for his grabassery. He was charged with ethical violations and has responded, to which the Ethics Commission replied that our jackass attorney general believes that, because he is an elected official, there are "layers of accountability" for him and the disciplinary commission is not the proper mechanism to hold him accountable (see the entirety here).

Pure bullshit.

This is a guy who has spent his entire career throwing the proverbial book at defendants who did not have the resources to defend themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if he was the type of prosecutor who overcharged on spurious grounds, threatening life in prison for a dime bag of weed or something, just to convince defendants to give up their constitutional right to see the evidence and confront witnesses against them.

This is just the kind of "justice for me but not for thee" attitude that I see all too often among our political elites. They can take that attitude and shove it where the sun doesn't shine, if you ask me. If I have to answer to the damn ethics commission, I don't think it's too much to ask that the elected chief attorney of the state answer as well.

Best quote from the disciplinary commission: "What [Curtis Hill's] motion boils down to is that the respondent seeks special and favorable treatment by the Court that no other lawyer would ever obtain. He seeks this Court, in essence, to declare that he is a lawyer whose conduct is above the Rules of Professional Conduct simply because he is the Attorney General. This Commission can think of nothing that would deepen the mistrust of the judicial system, diminish the esteem of the Supreme Court, and prejudice the administration of justice more than if the Court were to grant [Curtis Hill's] motion."

That sound you just heard? That was the mic being dropped.

More on Conservative Snowflakes

I wrote previously about how so-called conservatives seemingly can't get enough of the preferential treatment from the government that they routinely decry. For example, if you are a conservative who does not agree with abortion, apparently you can go get a job at an abortion clinic and not have to work . . . moral conscience you see. If you're a county clerk, it's OK if you refuse to do your job and issue marriage licenses yet continue to collect your paycheck . . . moral conscience you see. If you're a corporation (say, Hobby Lobby) that wants to take advantage of a generous tax break for providing your employees health insurance, you can still get the tax break even if you don't offer insurance that actually, you know, insures your health in the event you want to do some family planning. If you're a manufacturer of a death-dealing device, you get special laws immunizing you from the entirely foreseeable consequences of your product . . . maximal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, you see.

Now, we get this story about a guy who left a loaded handgun in plain sight in an unlocked vehicle yet is immune from civil liability for this clearly negligent act. Of course, this is not due to a judicial determination but rather due to the Indiana General Assembly (where bad ideas go to thrive).

I hear about "responsible gun owners" having their 2nd Amendment rights protected all the time. Well, gun owners, what about the guy in this story? Is this the person you intend to protect? Are the dead kids just "the price of freedom" to you?

As the NRA types like to ape this photo, I can't help but ask them: "What are you willing to do about those who don't control their own guns?"

Sheila Kennedy, per usual, says it best:

If you have a tree with a loose limb in your yard, you need to take care that it doesn’t fall and hurt someone who might sue you. But if you have a loaded gun available to whoever walks by, no worries.

The Indiana General Assembly has protected you. 

Sometimes, you just tip your cap.

Indiana - Where Bad Ideas Never Die

So, the nation's worst legislature is at it again. Just today, the Indiana Lawyer (as well as NPR, which I listened to this morning on my way to work) discussed a new bill put forth by Indiana lawmakers:

Senate Bill 201, authored by Republican Sens. Liz Brown of Fort Wayne, Linda Rogers of Granger and Travis Holdman of Markle exempts nurses, physician assistants and pharmacists from being required to perform an abortion or assist in such a procedure. The legislation was approved by the upper chamber on a 39-to-1 vote and is moving to the House floor after being approved by the House Committee on Public Health along a party-line 9-to-4 vote.

So, let me get this straight . . . if nurses, PAs, or pharmacists have religious objections to participating in abortion (however they want to define it, which increasingly includes issuance of birth control), they get to keep their jobs and not do the work?

Am I the only one who notices how our "small government conservative" legislature keeps passing out "government goodies" to its favored constituents? Where is the bill that provides a police officer or a prosecutor exemption from being required to arrest or prosecute small-time drug offenders because they believe the War on Drugs is counterproductive and racist?

Oh, I hear the crickets. Those bills are only for gun makers who don't want to be held civilly liable for the utterly predictable consequences of their products; for gunowners who don't want to be held civilly liable for their trigger happiness; for so-called Christians who can't abide sending their children to public school but don't want to actually, you know, pay for their children's Christian education and upbringing (instead, they want the government to pay for it).

Note, I have merely ranted about the actual bill, not whether it passes constitutional muster, be that at the state or federal level. Something tells me that an employer has a pretty good takings argument, i.e. the government is taking the abortion provider's money by forcing it to employ someone in a ghost position who won't do the work of the business. (Interesting side note: How does this fit in with the arguments about Right to Work? How does this fit in with Indiana's "at-will employment" status?)

For those who can't tell, I've about had it with this sanctimonious group of ass bags calling themselves "public servants," to and including Senator Mike Young (who, of course, voted for this monstrosity).

Mike Young for State Senate 2020: Government Goodies for Favored Interest Groups

Today's Sign of the Apocalypse

While the salary information for teachers is publicly posted, generally, salary information for private sector workers is not.

Nonetheless, sometimes you can figure things out. For example:

• A "front desk manager" at MHS, also known as the Centene Corporation, which is a HIP health insurer, makes $34,000 - $37,000/year.
• An "elementary school teacher" in IPS starts off making $34,890/year.

So, to be clear, our society values sitting behind a front desk more or less the same as it values an elementary school teacher. Revealed preferences sure are a bitch, aren't they? I, for one, would gladly join any teacher's picket line in full solidarity. 

Sen. Mike Young & Hate Crime Legislation

Maybe you are OK with Indiana being one of 5 states without a hate crimes law. That's your right. Maybe you like that Indiana gets lumped in with Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, and Wyoming for this purpose (places with less-than-stellar track records of protecting minority rights). That too is your right.

The Indiana state Senate, yesterday, debated a hate crimes bill. It passed out of committee 9-1. For those keeping track at home, those 9 committee votes didn't all come from democrats; there are only 10 of them in the entire senate and 3 on this particular committee.

Anyway, the pertinent language out of committee was this:

The person committed the offense, including an offense involving the property of an individual or a group of individuals, with the intent to harm or intimidate an individual or a group of individuals because of a perceived or actual characteristic of the individual or group of individuals, including: (A) race; (B) religion; (C) color; (D) sex; (E) gender identity; (F) disability; (G) national origin; (H) ancestry; (I) sexual orientation; or (J) age; whether or not the person’s belief or perception was correct.

After debate was commenced on the floor of the senate, Senator Freeman (essentially representing Franklin Twshp. in Indianapolis) offered the following amendment:

“The criteria listed in subsections (a) and (b) do not limit the matters that the court may consider, including bias, in determining the sentence” 

So, if listing the criteria above doesn't limit what the court can consider in determining a sentence, then why do we list them? I deal in litigation on a daily basis; factors and criteria are precisely what people use in the justice system to determine whether they're following the law. Sen. Freeman, in essence, added another section to this hate crimes law that said, "Well, what we said before about protecting certain historically downtrodden populations doesn't really carry any weight."

And here's the punchline: your own senator, Senator Mike Young, like the good party man he is, voted with the majority of his Republican party colleagues to make sure that those in the minority in Indiana, whether the ethnic, gender, religious, or other minority, got the message loud and clear that they don't care about you.

If you voted for Mike Young, you voted for this. If you don't like this, don't ever vote for Mike Young again.

Quidam Stultus non Sulvit

Being a lawyer, I have probably heard a majority of the lawyer jokes out there. Most of them revolve around lawyers being greedy. (Ever heard of the law firm Dewey, Cheatham & Howe?)

Anyway, I saw an interesting writeup in Above the Law today about reasonable fees and decided to share a few things:

our ethical canon specifically prohibits such greed by imposing limits on attorney’s fees. In particularly, ABA Model Rule 1.5(a) states that “[a] lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge or collect an unreasonable fee….”

And because reasonable is one of these amorphous terms not subject to clear delineation like “love,” “beauty” and “monogamy in a long-distance relationship,” Rule 1.5(a) goes further and lays out eight specific factors to consider in determining whether a lawyer’s fee is reasonable; such as the time and labor required, local market prices, the amount involved, the experience and ability of the lawyer, etc. And while it is true that the drafters of this rule were not clear in setting forth how many of the eight factors must be met for a lawyer’s fee to be deemed “reasonable,” at least they attempted to put some constraints on our rapacity.

In other words, the Model Rules of Professional Responsibility (I know, the rules of lawyerly ethics . . . probably seems like a contradiction in terms) prohibit lawyers from being too greedy. Of course, this is a violation of the canon of free markets, for those who take such things seriously.

This stands in stark contrast to the general rule of a free market economy, which generally presumes that any fee is reasonable so long as you can get some fool to pay it. In fact, I believe that Adam Smith said precisely those words when negotiating his publishing contract for The Wealth of Nations. Or perhaps, it was P.T. Barnum who first said it.

So, the phrase in the title? Well, I don't know many lawyers that would pass up the opportunity to say something in Latin that could easily be stated in English, but it means "some fool paid it."

If some fool would pay me $10,000 to mow his lawn, that's fine. If that same fool wanted to pay me $10,000 to handle his expungement or review a contract, I'd probably be in ethical hot water.

Just a thought.

 

Read THIS, if nothing else today

By which, I mean this piece that ran in Slate recently about the state of American education. It was written by a guy who was a finalist for National Teacher of the Year.

A few highlights:

Society sends deeply conflicting messages to students: We tell them nothing in life matters more than education, while we treat the people who educate them as largely interchangeable, disposable parts. 

Indeed. Imagine, for a moment, that we treated teachers as "professionals" who have gone to school for may years to do their jobs. Imagine if we showed them the same respect that we demand our kids show them.

When we read reports about “high turnover at low-income schools,” this is a euphemism. It means that low-income kids, predominantly brown and black, constantly get new, inexperienced teachers. And there’s a growing frustration within the ranks of teachers over unsustainable workloads and untenable work conditions. Teachers in my circles have sought greener pastures: a technical writer, a project manager, and a corporate trainer. Effective teachers have options.

I would like to think that I was an effective teacher. Note that I say was.

After seven (7) years in the classroom, I too "sought greener pastures." I am by no means wealthy now, but I make approximately 2-3X what I did as a teacher, and NO, I don't work more or harder than I used to.

 This all points to a crisis in the teaching profession. If the “Teachers of the Year” feel this way, imagine what it’s like for millions of teachers toiling in low-income urban and rural schools across the country.

For the record, I believe that "low-income urban and rural schools" can be applied to nearly every public school in Indianapolis with the exception of North Central H.S. I used to teach at Decatur Central H.S. and I know that I received favorable treatment as to my student loan because it was characterized as a "low-income" school.

As a teacher, I hope you understand this lesson: Teaching is a profession, and great teachers need to feel respected and empowered. If they don’t, they will leave—and they should.

I think that is the most important point. If you treat teachers like shit, the ones with options will go elsewhere. And they should. Talented, smart people should not be subjected to the low pay, long hours, and constant disrespect that our public school teachers get.

I, for one, fully appreciate the teachers who enabled me to get ahead in life; the teachers who toil away teaching my own children so that I can go make a living as a litigator; and the teachers with whom I used to work (and for whom I have the utmost respect).

If you are a teacher and see me out at a bar, please come say hi to me. I'd love to buy you a drink.

 

 

Sen. Young - The National Version

So, in my haste to express my opinion re. our state Senator Mike Young, I have neglected to express my opinion regarding U.S. Senator Todd Young. Following is a somewhat old rant, but I believe most of my points are still relevant. Lest this be considered a partisan hit job, let me first express my utter disdain for Evan Bayh. That the IN Democratic Party can't do any better than Evan Bayh for its senate candidate is a testament to the incompetence of the party. They deserved to lose this seat, and they deserve to continue losing so long as they continue to do the same hapless $hi+.

But on to Todd Young.

First, I am sickened by his constant reference to his Marine service. Like most Americans, I am grateful for our men and women in uniform. However, I believe that those who would use their service as a character reference have revealed their own character far beyond what their service would say. Further, Todd Young implies that he has served in combat, when the closest he has come to combat, so far as I can tell, was Chicago. I'm sorry Senator Young, but I do not believe that serving stateside uniquely qualifies you to make decisions regarding the use of military force.

Second, his lauding of the private sector. This is a man who graduated from Carmel H.S. in 1990 and went to the Naval Academy in 1991. Thereafter, he was employed by the U.S. military until 2000. Notably, he was able to attend the University of Chicago and get an MBA while in the military. I wonder who paid his tuition? (Hint: I did). Moving on, he moved to Washington, D.C., in 2001 and worked for the Heritage Foundation, then joined Senator Richard Lugar's staff. In 2003, he joined Mitch Daniels' campaign. Meanwhile, he was an adjunct professor at IU's School of Public and Environmental Affairs (SPEA later, those of you who couldn't get into Kelly!) and earned his law degree (again, who paid the tab?). He worked as a lawyer very briefly before running for congress.

Mind you, none of this is objectionable on its face, but when taken as a whole it is a bit distasteful. Grew up in Carmel. Got an appointment to the naval academy. Got commissioned as an officer stateside. Used government connections to get elite education. Used elite education to get elected.

This is a classic

Outsider indeed!

UPDATE: I also note that Senator Marine has failed to stand up to President Trump's national "emergency" declaration. As of four days ago, he was utterly silent. The funny thing about the internet, though, is that what you said during the last president is still available. So, in all of its glory, Senator Todd Young on executive overreach as pertains immigration (bold added by TableTop Joe):

"Our country must address illegal immigration, but unilateral action by the president that only addresses a fraction of our problems is the wrong way to go about it," Young wrote.

"When it comes to making or rewriting laws, Congress must be involved," he insisted.

"To that end, a few months ago the House passed legislation that would divert more resources towards securing our southern border, enforcing our existing laws, and processing legal cases more quickly," Young continued. "I had hoped we could use that legislation as a starting point next Congress to build deliberative and bipartisan consensus; instead, the president has decided to pursue a blatantly political course that jeopardizes the open dialogue and true immigration reform so many of us were hoping for in coming months."

"President Obama said repeatedly for years that he did not have the authority to act on immigration reform alone, a legal analysis I agree with," the congressman said.

"By contradicting himself for what appears to be political purposes, this action potentially sets a policy precedent fraught with unintended consequences when it comes to enforcement of any federal law," Young said. "Additionally, it may invite a new surge of illegal immigrants, rather than ensuring it will be extremely difficult for anyone to sneak or stay in the United States illegally."

I suppose it's true: where you stand depends on where you sit. When Todd Young was a house member in the majority with an opposition party president, it was downright easy to throw stones at the "house of Obama." Now, however, as a Senator in the majority with a Republican President, I suppose we see the actual "value" of Todd Young's "convictions."

I suppose, as to the value of Senator Young's convictions, if I take those convictions and add $4 I could get a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Why Young People With Options Go Elsewhere (and what we can do to stop it)

Ah, my "hometown." Fort Wayne, IN.

I have lived there four (4) separate times in my life. The first time, I moved there in 1985. The last time, I moved there in 2013. I was happy to leave all four times I left.

Today, I read this in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette about a branding effort to get young people to move to northeast Indiana. Here is the new logo they came up with.

From the article:

Business leaders are hoping a new branding effort will help lure people to live and work in northeast Indiana.

The Northeast Indiana Regional Partnership today unveiled "Make It Your Own," a marketing effort designed to attract people ages 21 to 45 to the 11-county region. The partnership, which is made up of business and civic leaders, worked with national and local marketing agencies to produce the tagline and a "brand strategy," according to a news release.

"Northeast Indiana's number one business need is increasing our talent pool," Michael Galbraith, director of the partnership's Road to One Million initiative, said in a statement. "On average, we have more than 6,000 unfilled jobs in the region in our jobs portal. For our region to thrive in today's global economy, we must grow our population to one million people by 2030."

Don't get me going on this "unfilled jobs" red herring. I've discussed this ad nauseum and my thoughts on it are well known.

As much as I appreciate the optimism of those who are trying to help the area, the fact of the matter is that people don't go there because opportunity is hoarded. It's not because Ft. Wayne lacks a "brand strategy," it's because Ft. Wayne lacks "opportunity."

I moved to Ft. Wayne after college and couldn't get a job that required a college degree. Is it any mystery why I left? I moved there after law school and left as soon as a law firm (as opposed to the company I was working for as an "in-house" lawyer . . . who performed precisely zero legal work) offered me a job in Indianapolis. Any mystery why I left?

That company I worked for had me purchasing right-of-way for utility lines. Boring, but decent work. I met a lot of "successful" people in the area and, to a disconcerting degree, most of the "successful" people I met were "successful" because they "won the sperm lottery" and were born into "successful" families. It had very little to do with these peoples' intelligence, motivation, innovation, or other such quality. Rather, it had everything to do with "my family started farming here in 1870" or "my grandfather started this warehouse company back in the '40s" or "my dad locked down the auto dealership market in this town in the 1950s." Pretty much everyone else in Ft. Wayne who is "successful" was raised, educated, and first hired and nurtured elsewhere. It was only after achieving professional success that they were "bribed" to move to Ft. Wayne and work for the large incumbent companies.

Maybe there was opportunity there in 1950 or 1920, but there sure ain't much opportunity there in 2019.

I write about this for two reasons. First, this is, to a large degree, my "hometown." I graduated from high school in Ft. Wayne. Second, and much more important, however, is that I want to see Speedway be a place where opportunity is planted and nourished, as opposed to hoarded by the incumbents. Is Speedway going to be a dynamic place, or is it simply going to be the place where the underwhelming offspring of the natives simply stay because they have no other opportunities? I'd prefer the former, but I fear the latter and can't help but notice how difficult it is for Indianapolis natives to break in with the large incumbent employers. Until and unless that changes, there will be a constant brain drain as the natives who can go where the opportunity is, and the large incumbent businesses are left trying to bribe mid-career professionals to return, just like in Ft. Wayne.

Thoughts on Expanding Medicare

I'll say it up front: I am a supporter of single-payer healthcare. My support derives from my actual lived experience in Canada, where I was forced to endure the statism and tyranny of socialized medicine lucky enough to indulge in state-run healthcare, even though I was not a citizen but merely a guest in that country.

I have heard a lot of discussion of Medicare for All among newly elected Democrats, and some older party members as well. I have the experience (and scars) necessary to know that Medicare for All just isn't going to happen any time soon, generally for two reasons: (1) People are loathe to give up the current system when they believe it is working for them; and (2) current Medicare recipients will be targeted relentlessly with ads invoking a zero-sum situation, where any expansion of Medicare would mean a reduction in their current benefits.

As to reason (1), I don't have much to add. If your employer currently picks up the tab for your health insurance, and you're reasonably healthy, the system certainly appears to be working for you and I understand why you wouldn't want to "fix" something that doesn't seem "broke." I do believe, however, that as costs continue to be dumped on individuals, in the form of higher deductibles, premiums, co-pays, etc., this will slowly and gradually change.

As to reason (2), I think that this can be dealt with strategically. As noted above, I have no reason to believe that the U.S. will adopt any sort of cradle-to-grave government-run healthcare in the remote future. However, if we're looking at expanding Medicare, we should be looking at the other end of the lifespan -- the young end.

As it currently sits, people get Medicare from 65 (or so, they keep monkeying with the formula) until they die. Any effort to lower the age for eligibility will be met with concern (2), neatly summed up as "I got mine; screw you."

On the other hand, if we extend Medicare to newborns starting tomorrow, and allow them to stay on it until they are 24 (to pick a random age), we have built in a dynamic where in 24 years there will be a significant constituency to keep raising the age where people are kicked out of Medicare and into the (brutal) private market.

A thought.

Of course, if you believe that nothing the government does will ever work, there is no convincing you of anything regarding policy changes. I would be better off arguing with my coffee table.

For Those Who Missed It

WTHR Reports:

SPEEDWAY, Ind. (WTHR) — A former town executive of Speedway is taking a plea deal after being accused of misusing the town's money.

Kenneth Scott Harris served as a redevelopment contractor and stepped down in 2015 after the start of a state inquiry.

He was accused of owing the state of Indiana nearly $20,000.

In 2017, he told Eyewitness News he had made some mistakes and would be able to clear it up.

Now he's agreed to plead guilty to counterfeiting for submitting an altered invoice to the Speedway Redevelopment Commission. It was for a payment for a service at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway.

The plea include no jail time according to court records obtained by Eyewitness News.

I have questions:

• Who put this guy in charge? I presume it was the Speedway Town Council; which of our current members were members when the decision to put him in charge was made? Who voted in favor of putting him in charge? I believe that an answer to these questions would allow me to make a determination as to the judgment of such Town Council members.
• He is only charged with wrongdoing from March - May of 2015; he is charged with forging invoices on behalf of the Redevelopment Commission. It was not until December of 2015 that he stepped down. Who on the Town Council knew of his actions and allowed him to remain in his position?
• What qualifications did Scott Harris present to the Speedway Town Council that would justify the trust they put in him?
• Were those qualifications ever vetted?
• To what degree was there any oversight exercised as to Mr. Harris' activities running the Redevelopment Commission?
• I have noticed that the Town of Speedway has an enormous environmental liability for land purchased from PraxAir during Mr. Harris' tenure; where was the oversight on that? Where was the Town Council?

It may seem as though I am being overly harsh on our Town Council. I certainly don't mean to be. I am a supporter of the Redevelopment Commission generally. However, actions like those of Scott Harris engender mistrust from the community and undermine the effort as a whole; officials who enabled such actions should be called to count for their acts and/or omissions. It is not lost on me that Town elections are coming up. These questions, and many more, should be presented to our incumbent Town Councilors who seek re-election. 

If they are worthy of our trust, then they owe it to us to answer these questions.

Musings on Libertarianism

I am not a libertarian, though I understand the draw of the ideology. In simple terms, libertarians believe that government and freedom exist in a strictly inverse proportion to each other. Here is a link to their web site. It's a nice, easy philosophy to embrace, I think. "Keep the government out of my life, and my life becomes freer."

I tend to believe it's not so simple.

Thomas Hobbes was the British philosopher who popularized the term "True Nature." You can read about it in detail here. In this state, all people have complete freedom. They can do whatever they want, as can you. Kill? Rape? Earn? Farm? Whatever. You can do all of it, so long as you can actually do it. Clearly, I couldn't bench press 300# in true nature any more than I can in present reality. There are just no laws to limit my "freedom" to rob, rape, and kill.

Of course, nobody else's "freedoms" are limited in this way either. As a natural result, I spend a disproportionate amount of my time protecting what I've built from other, taking certain "liberties" with my property. Thus, I can't go to work because someone might forcefully take over my house. I can't stockpile food because someone may very well show up to take it. My family? Well, perhaps someone else with superior fighting skills decides he should be the patriarch of my family.

In sum, by giving up my "freedom" to forcefully take from others, I in turn gain the "freedom" of knowing that others aren't allowed to forcefully take from me. Seen in that light, additional government actually INCREASES freedom. Such is a dispositive argument to libertarianism and is the reason I can't get on board with the simplicity of the ideology.

"Workforce Quality" - per the Indiana Chamber of Commerce

I wasn't going to go on a rant today, but I just can't help myself. I am so tired of Chamber of Commerce types talking about how there are all of these jobs going unfilled because of the "skills gap" or something. This is nothing more than an attempt by the business community to get something for nothing, i.e. highly trained employees that the business didn't have to invest in to get the skills.

Recall that the business community has consistently backed right-wing initiatives in this state, including right-to-work and school privatization/voucherization schemes. What do these have in common? They devour the training pipeline for employees in the state in the short-sighted mission of "cutting costs." Well, you cut the costs all right. In so doing, you also cut the farm league, so to speak.

I saw this letter in the Ft. Wayne Journal Gazette today, and it just infuriates me:

It's impossible to have any business conversation today without the workforce issue coming up.

"The workforce issue" is a nice euphamism. I think what he means is "we can't get the product/skills we want at the price we're willing to pay so we're going to demand that the government step in and solve this problem for us."

Results of the Indiana Chamber's latest annual employer survey highlight the challenges facing Hoosier companies.

Wouldn't it be nice if Hoosier lawmakers had the same concern for Hoosier citizens that it has for Hoosier businesses?  

For the first time, more than half of the survey respondents left jobs unfilled in the past year, citing underqualified applicants. The 51 percent total is the fifth consecutive increase, starting with 39 percent in 2014.

As I've said before, my firm left the "$25,000/year, 12-0 at the Supreme Court, $2M book of business" job open last year too. We just couldn't find a candidate to fill it! 

Another concern: A third responded that filling their workforce/talent needs is their biggest challenge. The total climbs to 80 percent when adding in those employers who cite workforce needs as one of their biggest challenges.

I thought that IN business doesn't favor giving something for nothing. I mean, they have had their corporate taxes cut for the last 5 years or so; why haven't they just used that money to fill out their "talent needs"? 

These alarming trends got our attention. The Indiana Chamber recently announced formation of the Institute for Workforce Excellence, which is dedicated to helping businesses attract, develop and retain the talent they need.

The institute has a number of offerings in place. An exclusive partnership with Ivy Tech Community College on the Achieve Your Degree initiative provides a 5 percent tuition rebate. The Indiana INTERNnet statewide internship matching program can lead to new hires, while Indiana Workforce Recovery guides employers on how they can help workers with opioid or other substance misuse.

Various employee education and training opportunities are also available, with additional strategic partnerships anticipated for 2019 that will lead to more statewide programs and initiatives.

Notice that there is no discussion herein as to "I bet if Hoosier corporations gave back the tax giveaway that Mike Pence gave them when he wanted to distract from RFRA, the state would have a bunch more money to fund high school and trade school programs." Instead, what do they offer? A catchy name for a program and a pittance of a "refund" that will easily be swallowed up and never seen by the student. 

The lost business opportunities from workforce deficits are real and have a negative effect on these companies, their existing employees and the overall economy.

Then spend money to train people or raise wages! It's not that hard! If your business can't remain profitable after paying its employees a market wage, that is not a government problem; that is a business-model problem. 

The state must continue to develop, implement and communicate effective training programs, while employers have the responsibility to investigate all options for increasing the skills of their associates. Attracting more workers to the state is also paramount.

I don't know what this even means. However, I would note that it looks like the IN Chamber demanding that the state government spend money to fulfill business' needs; this is the same organization that screams "Socialism!!" every time anything, no matter how little, is proposed to help actual people that would either add regulatory obligations to some businesses (in the form of such terrible things as labor laws, for example) or cost them money (i.e. taxes).

We hope the new Institute (www.indianachamber.com/workforce) will enable the business community to further engage and ultimately help move our workforce forward.

For starters, what does it mean to "move our workforce forward?" Does that mean that the IN wealthy can get more highly skilled employees without having to pay anything extra for them? Or does that mean that Hoosier wages go up? I think that the IN Chamber is probably not all that concerned with whether Hoosier workers make a living wage. 

Kevin Brinegar

President, Indiana Chamber of Commerce Indianapolis

 Why don't you hope in one hand and $hi+ in the other? Let's see which hand fills up first. 

Thoughts on the State of the Union

A few thoughts, in no particular order or leading to any particular cadence:

1. I agree with Mitch Daniels. The State of the Union has outlived its usefulness. Perhaps 100 years ago, it was nice to see (or hear) the President of the federal government informing Congress (via radio) of the actual state of our union. Mind you, this was pre-New Deal, so the Federal Govt. was comparatively limited. Also, this was pre-focus groups, etc. Now, the State of the Union is little more than a partisan spectacle. Provide a written report, based on facts, and leave the conjecture to the campaign trail.

2. Nancy Pelosi owns Donald Trump. This picture says it all:

You get Mike Pence, doing what Mike Pence does best (grovelling), and then you have "the Donald" looking at Madam Speaker for approval, which she seems to mockingly give him. Mr. Trump, you have met your match, "and when you're speaker of the House, they just let you do it."

3. Go big for the wall. It seems pretty clear that President Trump wants his wall built, regardless of what people tell him about its effectiveness or necessity. With that said, Mr. President, GO BIG. You want to be a transformative president? Make a big deal! Deals don't get made by demanding the same terms over and over. Mr. President, if you want your wall, make the Democrats an offer they can't refuse. Your threats to shut down the government don't scare anyone because everyone knows that it is you, not congressional Democrats, who is demanding something in exchange for keeping the government open. Offer something so important to the democrats that they will have no choice but to go along with your quixotic wall.

4. The only part I liked was the women cheering. I noticed President Trump cited women's employment numbers; based on the context, I thought he was trying to troll Democrats. Of course, they stood up and cheered, insinuating (if I picked it up accurately) that Donald Trump is personally responsible for so many of them being elected. Surprisingly, President Trump appeared to have a good sense of humor about it.

5. I didn't hear any policy proposals that I expect to become law. President Trump complained some about prescription drug prices and said that it is going to change, "and real fast." Of course, complaining about a problem is not a policy proposal. It is one thing to ID the problem; it is quite another to have any idea of what to do about it. As I've heard more than once: "The only legal question worth answering is 'what do we do now?'"

A Bit More About Defamation

I wrote previously about that a$$hat Kurt Schleichter (sp?). This is a small piece of the quote from my earlier piece:

You find the Twitter trolls who circulated these lies and then find out their paymasters. And you find the blue check psychos demanding these kids be murdered for their race, religion, gender, and the baffled smile, in the face of the abuse that these liars hid from their audience.

Upon further review, I am kind of inclined to agree with this. I would love to find the Twitter trolls who circulate lies; I would love to find their paymasters. I believe Mr. Schleichter and I have differing views as to who the trolls are and who is paying them (he likely believes George Soros is behind this somewhere; I tend to believe that the Russian troll farms are the problem).

I would also like to expose anyone who believes that people should "be murdered for their race, religion, gender" and so on and so forth, including for "the baffled smile." I do wonder, however, whether Mr. Schleichter believes that "all" people in America (or the world) should be afforded this right or only privileged white kids.

Should young black men be murdered by the police simply because of their race? Simply because the police believe that the neighborhood is dangerous and black people are violent? I don't think so. How does Mr. Schleichter feel?

I'd say the same about religion. Where does Mr. Schleichter stand on Individual 1's "complete shutdown of Muslims coming into this country"? Does he believe that invading Muslim countries is OK because they are lesser beings? I don't know; I'm simply posing questions.

How about gender? Where does Mr. Schleichter come down on a woman's right not to be groped by entitled men? What about women who are drug into bedrooms by drunken teenage boys and groped? Is that just "boys will be boys" or is that an actual problem? What say Mr. Schleichter and his compatriots over at Town Hall?

As to the "baffled smile," how many young people of color are "stopped and frisked" because they "look suspicious" in some sort of undefined way (i.e. they are people of color).

I think one of the big problems in our society is that people selectively empathize with others. Mr. Schleichter saw the MAGA teen and immediately empathized with him, never stopping to think about the level of disrespect he was showing to the elderly man participating in the native peoples' march. So many people jumped to Brett Kavanaugh's defense because they empathized with him, not with his accusers. People say "Blue Lives Matter" because they empathize with police officers at the expense of the young people of color who are arrested and killed at a disproportionate rate.

I guess now I'm just rambling. Some people have accused me of being so liberal I can't take my own side in an argument. So it goes.

Indiana: America's Wal-Mart?

So I had a discussion with a family friend today who resides in Minnesota. She is quite well to do and mentioned that her tax burden is significantly higher than mine here in Indiana. She then noted that she is happy to pay her taxes because she believes that she gets the good end of that "deal": better schools, better public services, better amenities, etc.

This got me a-thinking about the "deal" that our state legislatures provide for us: They will keep our taxes as low as possible. Full stop. This mindset, I think, explains the paucity of sidewalks and street lights in the city, let alone any meaningful efforts at a robust public transportation system.

At the end of the day, what Indiana has on offer is low cost. It's cheap to live here. It's cheap to do business here. We have been led down this primrose path by our legislatures (who, almost without uniformity, will tell you that "government is the problem, not the solution" and "taxation is theft") and those who continue to vote for them (who likely will respond to this by inviting me to pay any amount of additional taxes I want).

If price is the only concern, you shop at Wal-Mart and eat at Burger King. If you're looking for something more, perhaps you shop at Nordstrom and eat at Ruth's Chris. If the finer clothing and food available at Nordstrom/Ruth's Chris is no better to you, you go back to Wal-Mart and Burger King. If it is worth it, you pay the extra amount.

I feel like our state "leaders" have continually refused to allow us a taste of what Indiana could be like if it was determined to be a desirable place to live on its merits, as opposed to continually holding onto the notion that "cost of living in Indiana is low" so people should want to live here.

Do we want to be the state where people choose to live because the state is so awesome, or do we want to be the state where people have to live because they can't afford to go anywhere else?

Libel and Defamation

I might have read the stupidest piece of garbage writing I've read in a long while this afternoon. It was a piece in "TownHall" by a guy named Kurt Schlichter, who apparently is a "lawyer." The piece is entitled, "Yeah, the Covington Kids Have a Case."

Garbage, I tell you.

If I had a client who was sued under the theory advanced by Mr. Schlichter, I would not only get it kicked out before ever coming near a jury, I would likely move to have my fees paid by the plaintiff for doing so.

Here are some of Mr. Schlichter's "brilliant" pieces of legal malpractice advice (emphasis added):

You go after the media targets, the ones who you can prove – via their tweets and news reports – knew the truth but didn’t print it to support their agenda. You find the Twitter trolls who circulated these lies and then find out their paymasters. And you find the blue check psychos demanding these kids be murdered for their race, religion, gender, and the baffled smile, in the face of the abuse that these liars hid from their audience.

OK, Mr. Big Shot. Please explain how you can prove that any of your "media targets" "knew the truth but didn't print it to support their agenda." Not only do you have to prove what someone else subjectively knew, you also have to prove why they did what they did. Do you think you can get one of them (assuming you can identify one) to say on the record, "Yes. I knew I was inaccurately reporting the news, but I just hate conservatives/Republicans so much I wanted to make the rest of the world hate them"? How about when your "media targets" raise an affirmative defense that their actions were merely cumulative, and there is no possible way to prove that their actions damaged this kid as opposed to someone else's actions like, say, a private citizen's.

Don't even get me started on how in the world you could ever actually quantify this kid's supposed damages. I mean, what is it worth to be interviewed sympathetically on the Today Show? 

Good luck. I thought you knew how to do this.

In sum, I believe that Mr. Schlichter means this:

If the old legal framework cannot right this wrong, then we need to create a new legal framework that will. And you do that by suing the hell out of them.

Again, good luck with that. I wonder if Mr. Schlichter ever wrote about "activist judges?" I wonder how this fits with those past writings?

For the curious, by the way, libel is a species of defamation and the legal elements of libel in Indiana are as follows:

1. a communication with defamatory imputation (i.e. "accusation")
2. malice
3. publication
4. damages

I'm not sure how right-wing blowhard "lawyer" Kurt Schlichter could possibly prove malice (or damages when the supposed victim is a high school kid . . . reputational damages are incredibly hard to prove and the evidence may show that this kid became, oh, I don't know, some sort of right-wing folk hero or something).

I also note that this right-wing outrage is awfully selective. Where was all of this discussion when they painted Trayvon Martin or Michael Brown as drug-addled psychopaths, without evidence? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the skin color of the subjects or the political leanings of them, could it?

In sum, what a bunch of garbage. I never should have clicked on the link. I can't believe that someone actually gets paid to write that kind of drivel.

 

More on Mike Young

I mean, how much more worthless could this guy be? Here is his "2019 Legislative Priorities," replete with TableTopJoe's annotations:

Recently, the Senate Republican Caucus announced its legislative priorities for the 2019 session.

During the next several months, lawmakers will work to prioritize the following initiatives:

Maintain an honestly balanced budget
Like all hardworking Hoosiers who balance their checkbooks, Senate Republicans know responsible government means making tough choices and spending within our means. Therefore, passing a two-year state budget that funds necessities and protects reserves is a top priority.

Good job Mike! You have dedicated yourself to following the Indiana Constitution! Also, this just in, I have refrained from murdering anyone in the past year; do I deserve a prize?

Protect vulnerable children
Due in part to the drug epidemic, the Department of Child Services’ (DCS) staff and resources are being stretched too thin when it comes to protecting the state’s children. Senate Republicans will support operational reforms as well as an appropriate level of new funding for DCS to protect Indiana’s vulnerable children.

This is a nice way of saying that they're not going to "throw money at this problem." It seems to me that they've done everything under the sun except "throw money at the problem." It kind of reminds me of the story my Dr. brother told me one time about a patient who was severely overweight and told him, "Doc, I'd do anything to lose some weight." The only thing my brother could think, as he tells the story, is, "You mean, you'd do anything except eat right and exercise." Similarly, Sen. Mike Young will do anything to protect Indiana's children . . . except spend money to do so.

Support education
With more than half of the state’s General Fund devoted to K-12 education, Indiana spends a higher percentage of its budget on education than all but two other states. This session, Senate Republicans will maintain that strong commitment to students, teachers and schools in the next budget.

This is a strange brag. Yes, IN does spend more, as a % of its budget, than all except two states. However, this fails to note that IN's budget has been shrinking due to our previous governor's corporate tax cuts that continue apace; it also fails to note that Indiana has one of, if not the, largest voucher program in the nation. Thus, public money gets to go and support religious schools. And before you applaud that, just remember that the very next religious school to open up could be teaching dogma that you find terrifying.

Improve school safety
Protecting schools from violence takes vigilance on the part of every Hoosier. At the Statehouse, Senate Republicans will work on school-safety improvements based on the recommendations made to Gov. Holcomb last year, including allowing Secured School Safety Grants to be used for mental and behavioral health services.

"Gun violence in school has nothing to do with guns, so don't even ask if we're going to do anything about guns."

Advance workforce development
To address Indiana’s long-term skills gap, the General Assembly has implemented many workforce-development reforms in recent years. In 2019, Senate Republicans will focus on changes to ensure our existing training programs result in meaningful career paths for all Hoosiers.

Spare me. I don't know a single person who's ever gotten any meaningful help from one of these so-called "existing training programs." I find it interesting that politicians like Mike Young believe that when rich people aren't investing and trying to make more money, it's because they don't make enough already; however, when working class people aren't investing their own time in themselves to get training, nobody thinks that, perhaps, it's because the job for which they would train doesn't pay shit.

I could rant on and on about this do-nothing jackass, but I'm pretty sure my feelings are well known. Perhaps if Sen. Mike Young actually worked in the free-market that he so lovingly espouses; if he actually had to pay for the things that his policies make more expensive; in short, if he actually had to live with the consequences of his own policies . . . then, just maybe, we would get some actual effective policy from him.

I won't hold my breath.

Sen. Mike Young and his "Priorities"

I got an email from our illustrious state Senator Mike Young, he of the government-funded law degree. Anyway, included in that email was this little gem:

Like Senate Republicans, Gov. Holcomb is working to bring more high-paying jobs to the state, further develop a 21st century skilled workforce, support education and help protect our at-risk children.

As both readers of this blog know, I have a high opinion of Gov. Holcomb. However, I found this statement to be a bit of a stretch:

• Maybe I'm dense, but I'm not sure how continuing the bankrupting of labor unions through Right to Work laws "is working to bring more high-paying jobs to the state." It seems to me, it's working to ensure that the jobs in this state are low paying. I understand (if disagree with) the rationale for this. However, just own it!
• "Further develop a 21st century skilled workforce" sounds to me like "make the government pay to train workers that companies won't themselves pay to train." Why is it the government's job to make sure that companies have trained workers? Can't the companies train the workers themselves, the way they used to?
• "Support education" by continuing to siphon money to charter schools
• "Help protect our at-risk children" by having yet another "study commission" on how to improve DCS without actually giving it the money it needs.

Senator Young, please don't insult our intelligence any more.

Further, I actually followed the link on the quote; I have more thoughts on that, which I will post tomorrow.

On Karen Pence

So, apparently Karen Pence has attracted a bunch of attention for going to teach art at a Christian school in the D.C. area that doesn't allow gay people . . . to work or learn there.

A few thoughts:

1. This is not about Freedom of Religion

I really don't care whether a private school chooses to exclude gay people. I think they're jerks for it, but my opinion is in the same class as theirs . . . that which is protected by the Constitution. Now, if we start talking about that school getting public money, we have a big problem; that's an argument for another day.

2. This is a Revealed Preference

I may say that I love salad, but if I order fried chicken every time, my revealed preference is fried chicken; my stated preference is salad. Karen Pence (and her husband) may say that they want the best for every child, but at the end of the day, they're only willing to help certain children who believe the way they do.

Again, that is their prerogative. I can't force Mike Pence to be "woke." Nonetheless, I think that I play fair when I use this to gauge the sincerity of some of Mike Pence's proclamations about the dignity of all human beings. Does he really mean "all" human beings, or does he mean all "human beings" (as defined by him and his teachings).

After all, Karen Pence could've chosen to teach at an inner-city school in the D.C. area. Remember when the D.C. basketball team was the Bullets, and they changed the name because they didn't want to feed a stereotype? I'm sure Karen Pence could've found an inner-city school that would welcome her with open arms. Surely she doesn't need the money she gets from part-time teaching at a private school. She could use her stature and position to advocate for something important.

She revealed her preference.

3. This Feeds a Stereotype

As both readers know, TableTopJoe used to be a teacher and was infuriated when teaching is treated as a hobby.

Teaching is not a hobby. Stop treating (and paying) it like it is. Karen Pence does this and feeds into the stereotype that teacher salaries don't need to be competitive because the teacher is not the "bread winner" of the family. F*** that. That is misogyny at its worst.

Teaching is a bona fide profession, no less than litigating. I am now a professional litigator, and I was a former teacher. I don't work any harder now than I ever have. It's time to stop treating teaching as though it is some sort of a junior varsity profession. It's not.

Feel where your mouth is; then put some money there.


Conclusion

TableTopJoe Out!

Why People Hate the Media

It has been my experience, ever since my driver's ed. teacher insisted on exposing me to hours of that fat a$$ Rush Limbaugh every day during that summer of 1992, that conservatives hate HATE the so-called "mainstream media." I've always presumed that it was because the mainstream media refused to parrot their bull$hit (pollution doesn't hurt the environment; guns have nothing to do with gun violence; cutting taxes raises tax intake for the government). 

Well, I'm pretty sure that conservatives have so thoroughly worked the refs that every disagreement that comes up on the national stage is either "Democrats' fault" or "both sides'" fault. Hell, I saw something yesterday that said that the government shut down is both sides' fault because (a) Donald Trump shut down the government because he couldn't get what he want; and (b) Democrats won't give him what he wants. For some reason, I can't get rid of the image of someone violently beaten during a mugging: it's the mugger's fault for beating the guy, but it's also the victim's fault because he didn't just give up his wallet, right?

Anyway, I read the Chicago Tribune this afternoon (Thursday) and about wanted to puke:

Before we get into all the liberal media hysteria over the government shutdown and the southern border, and Donald, Nancy and Chuck hissing at one another while avoiding a workable compromise sitting right in front of their noses, a word about sausage-making.

First off, how is this "liberal media hysteria" when the President of the United States demands a policy change, can't get it through Congress, and then decides that he will simply shut down the government? 

Let's remember that this is not Congress attempting to make some huge change to existing policy, a la Newt Gingrich trying to eviscerate Medicare in 1994 or Congressional Republicans demanding that Obamacare be "defunded" in 2013. This is the President demanding a huge change to policy and shutting the government down when he didn't get it. 

Is this really the new standard? 

If the President wants something, is he entitled to shut the government down? Is that what Obama should have done every time Congressional Republicans stymied his initiatives from 2010 onward, or when they refused to give Merrick Garland so much as a hearing, or is this a "Republican Only" privilege?

Our Chicago Tribune pundit, lets just call him "both sides," claims that there is an "easy" compromise to be had:

They’re the Dreamers. They want to legally call America home. Why not let them stay?

If they’re not in criminal gangs or possessed of violent criminal records, the Dreamers should be given legal residency. That’s what Trump and the Republicans should offer the Democrats.

And in exchange, Democrats should give Trump and the Republicans the $5.6 billion for the wall.

This is called compromise. Remember the word?

The only problem with Mr. Bothsides' proposal is that it was already offered to the Democrats, accepted by the Democrats, and then withdrawn after hardline right-wing immigration restrictionists lost their collective $hit.

If I cut a deal with you today and then go back on that deal, why would you cut that same deal with me tomorrow?

So, as I said before, here's what Democrats should demand in exchange for the wall:

1. National Right to Organize law that preempts every state-level Right to Work law.
2. Rescission of the Trump "Give Rich People More Money" Tax Cut for all corporations and individuals with annual income above $1,000,000.
3. Commitment to nominate only American Constitution Society judges; no more Federalist Society judges.
4. Medicare for All.

Surely, Mr. Bothsides, we can negotiate from there, right? Until the Republicans are willing to give up a sacred calf of theirs, no f*cking wall! 

"Conquest"

I have recently heard discussion of invoking the "military version of eminent domain" in order to build Agent Orange's vanity project President Trump's border wall. The more I think about it, the more it occurs to me that there's a better term for it than "military version of eminent domain."

That term is "conquest."

Thus concludes our vocabulary lesson for the day.

Truth

I couldn't figure out a way to embed it, but Ezra Klein had probably the most insightful tweet of the last 24 hours:

"If Donald Trump wanted the wall, he'd have negotiated away something of value to get it. Or at least tried to do so. He doesn't want the wall. He wants the fight over the wall. He wants to be seen going to war over the wall. That's what tonight is about."

Regrettably, I am unable to figure out how to embed the tweet here, so I kind of feel like I'm plagiarizing. However, I think that this is spot on and relates to my post yesterday. It is very revealing to hear how much people are willing to give up to get or keep something; it tells one a lot about how much the thing is worth to the person who wants it.

As a telling anecdote, I took a plaintiff's case a few years ago that I turned out to be a total "pig," i.e. there wasn't a lot of merit or money to it. Nonetheless, I demanded about ten times what I thought it was worth, and the defendant wound up offering about five times what I had prepared my client to accept. Obviously, the case settled. Perhaps the case was worth more to the defendant than me, or perhaps the defendant knew something I didn't. Either way, the settlement offer was telling.

So too in the present situation. As a proud progressive, I see an opportunity to extract something from the president. I would take that opportunity were I in Congress. I don't really care about "the wall" one way or another; I think it's pretty stupid, but in all honesty, $5.6B is a rounding error in a budget expected to be approximately $4.4T. To be clear, this $5.6B would represent approximately 0.0012% of the budget.

Nonetheless, I think it's a stupid vanity project, and I am disinclined to give one to a president who has governed not on my behalf but seemingly in a constant effort to piss me off and offend my sensibilities.

Imagine for a moment that the neighbor who you can't stand needed your permission to do something. Even if you don't care, you bet your a$$ you're going to extract a price from the annoying neighbor. If the neighbor wasn't willing to pay any price to do that "something," said unwillingness probably says a lot about how badly the neighbor actually wants that "something," wouldn't it?

Border Wall "Negotiations"

As we limp into 2019 without a functioning federal government, I ask myself what the whole kerfuffle is even about. Does anyone seriously believe that building a cement (or steel) wall along the border will do anything to keep criminals from entering the country?

Let's recall that the majority of illicit drugs enter this country at points of entry, generally packed in with other cargo; the majority of illegal immigrants entered this country legally and overstayed their visas; and apprehensions at the southern border are at a 17-year low.

So, I suppose point #1 is that the wall won't "fix" the "problem" that its proponents say needs fixing, and the "problem" has gotten significantly better in recent years.

Nonetheless, if someone wants a big concrete and steel symbol to his own xenophobic ego, I suppose all things are worth negotiating. I do a lot of negotiating by virtue of my job, and I notice that you get a real feel for how much someone thinks a thing is worth by how much that person is willing to give up to get it.

Trump has demanded a border wall, and the GOP has stuck by him and echoed the demand. What have they offered for it? They continue to publicly claim that the Democrats aren't negotiating with them. So, on behalf of myself (and perhaps a significant number of liberals), here is my offer to the wall builders:

• WE appropriate your $5,600,000,000 to build your precious wall;
• In exchange:
• YOU repeal last year's tax cuts for everyone making over $500,000/year
• YOU immediately pass Medicare for All
• YOU immediately provide the votes to pass a National Right-to-Organize bill that preempts all state-level Right-to-Work bills
• YOU nominate members of the American Constitution Society to the federal bench, exclusively.

Upon satisfaction of the above conditions, the $5.6B will be appropriated. How's that for a starting point in negotiations?