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?