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.

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.

Insult or Injury?

I was a public school teacher for the better part of a decade.

I left teaching to become a lawyer. People often ask me why, and I've settled on a fairly simple answer: a profession should be rewarding, either personally or financially. Teaching wasn't.

It wasn't personally rewarding for me. I could enumerate specific reasons, but this is not long-form writing . . . it would take too long. Simply put, teaching ceased to be personally rewarding because seemingly everyone, from the President to the Governor to my students' parents to my students themselves, expected me to care more about my students than any of them, including their own parents and indeed themselves. The old meme about "Welcome to teaching, where the pay sucks and everything is your fault" rings very true.

As to the finances, I'm fairly certain plenty has been written about that already. I tend to hear people who've never taught talk about how easy teachers have it; that's a crock of $hit. Anyone making such a claim is hereby challenged to (1) get licensed; (2) teach every day for a year; (3) live on a teaching salary for a year; and (4) continue talking about how easy teaching is.

As I've noted before, I am a civil litigator. I have tried cases that could result in hundreds of thousands of dollars in judgments against my clients, bankrupting their businesses and ruining their lives. Particularly when weighed against the annual income, the total stress of litigating doesn't outweigh the total stress of teaching by much.

Anyway, this is all a lead-up to the "insult to injury" email I got from Sen. Do-Nothing Government-Funded-Lawyer/Lobbyist Michael Young. Sen. Young, having voted to hamstring teachers' ability to collectively bargain for better wages, having voted to make school funding a statewide issue (so that it can be underfunded), having voted to wrench local control away from schools, now has the brass to send an email to me about Scholarships for Future Educators.

How about this Sen. Young? Maybe, instead of throwing paltry scholarships at prospective educators, you treat current educators with the same respect you would treat opposing counsel? Maybe you acknowledge that their jobs are difficult and valuable? Perhaps you acknowledge that teaching is not a hobby but a profession, and that requires actually paying people. Maybe you can acknowledge that for decades, society has been getting teachers at a cut rate because their labor is undervalued as "womens' work" as opposed to the "manly" work of construction or factory work (both of which pay better, I might add, and construction allows its seasonally laid off employees to collect unemployment; teaching? not so much).

Simply put Sen. Young, perhaps you could acknowledge that there is a large swath of society that actually makes money by working instead of trading off connections to do stuff like be a lobbyist, get elected to the state legislature, or get your law school tuition paid.l

Milquetoast Joe Donnelly

To parrot what Sheila Kennedy wrote the other day, I think that Joe Donnelly is a horrible centrist sellout. I think that so many of his positions are cowardly, and I rank him down with Evan Bayh as a finger-in-the-air politico.

I will vote for him anyway, even if I have to hold my nose.

In light of that preface, I turn to a different but related topic: whether he should vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh.

I think that he should not.

I actually wrote to the Ft. Wayne Journal Gazette recently about this. My point, then and now, is that there is not a single Republican out there who is (a) aware of who Brett Kavanaugh is AND (b) will be swayed to vote for Joe Donnelly and against Mike Braun. Contrarily, I believe that there are plenty of progressives (whether they count themselves as Democrats or not) who will stay home if Sen. Donnelly votes to confirm Brett Kavanaugh. After all, if Sen. Donnelly votes like a Republican when it counts, why bother to campaign/canvass/fundraise for him? Why not just let the few remaining governing positions in Indiana go to Republicans if all of the Indiana Democrats are going to act like Republicans when the rubber hits the road anyway?

In light of that, I present this from Abdul Hakeem Shabaz (he used to be "Abdul in the Morning" but I think the plug got pulled on that):

A new poll of the U.S. Senate race gives Democrat Joe Donnelly a 12-point lead over Republican Mike Braun, but it changes depending on whether he votes to confirm Brett Cavanaugh for the U.S. Supreme Court.

The poll of more than 1,400 likely voters, conducted by The Trafalgar Group, gives Donnelly a lead of 50.8 to 38.6 over Braun.  Ten percent are undecided.

However, that lead drops to 39.4 to 38.5 if Donnelly votes for the confirmation.  And if Donnelly votes against the confirmation,  his lead only drops to 45-38.

The number of undecided voters also grows to 22 percent if Donnelly votes yes; 16 percent if he votes no.

The poll was taken from July 31 to August 7.

It has a margin of error of +/- 2.6 percent.

Of course, a poll taken 3+ months before an election, combined with $3, is worth approximately $3 (ask Hillary Clinton). Nonetheless, I note that Sen. Donnelly's lead over Mike Braun drops more if he votes to confirm Brett Kavanaugh than if he votes not to. (I also note that Abdul mis-spells Kavanaugh's name, but who really cares?)

So, to that end, Sen. Donnelly, I implore you to vote against Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation. I don't like that Supreme Court nominations are political. That doesn't mean that they aren't. Senators often have to take tough votes; sometimes right before an election. It seems to me that someone who represents me in a legislature should be willing to vote his conscience, even if it costs him an election.

About that Curtis Hill

Not only is he a creepy groper, drug warrior, and the worst kind of attorney (prosecutor), he also wastes our money on stupid partisan snipe hunts:

Last month, judge Sarah Evans Barker approved a consent decree reached by plaintiffs Common Cause Indiana and the Indianapolis NAACP and the defendant, the Marion County Election Board.

In a filing Tuesday, the attorney general argued that the consent decree cannot replace an election board's legal requirement to decide unanimously to create in-person early voting sites.

 For those following at home, the backdrop to this is that state law requires unanimity among the members of a county election board in order to open up new voting sites. The Marion County election board has consistently lacked such unanimity, as the Republican members of such board have repeatedly and consistently refused to agree to open new voting sites . . . seemingly part of the ongoing project to protect against voter fraud discourage voting.

Anyway, the county election board got sued. They eventually settled and agreed to put new voting sites in. Of course, Mr. AG had to come along and do anything he could to help his team distract from his own problems.

Marion County’s decision to open additional voting centers is being contested by Attorney General Curtis Hill, but the Marion County Election Board disputes his assertion that the agreement to offer more early voting sites is contrary to Indiana law or that the board lacked a unanimous vote.

A consent decree settling a lawsuit over access to early voting was approved by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in mid-July in Common Cause Indiana et al. v. Marion County Election Board, 1:17-cv-1388.

Hill, on behalf of the state, is challenging the consent decree that opens additional satellite voting centers in Marion County for the 2018 general election. He filed a motion Tuesday asking the federal court to withdraw the agreement. The board last month announced six early-voting sites around Indianapolis would be open in time for November’s mid-term election.

OK. What is Mr. Hill's reasoning for bringing a lawsuit, paid for by the taxpayers of Indiana, whose general purpose is to prevent those same taxpayers from being able to vote (without waiting in line for what tends to be, by most estimates, "forever")?

Hill’s office also argued “it is not in the public interest for a federal court to enter, enforce, and monitor a consent decree that dictates the operation of state-run elections.” Further, the AG’s office said the public interest is “jeopardized by the removal of (Defendant Election Board’s) minority leverage in the political process.”

You know, the candor of that is quite surprising. What is the AG talking about when he mentions "minority leverage in the political process?" Well, that's just what was mentioned above: Republicans wanted to make sure that voting remained inconvenient in Indianapolis, presumably to drive down turnout of what is viewed as a "liberal" electorate. You will note that polling places in rural locales far outnumber, on a per-capita basis, those in liberal urban locales.

Anyway, as to the two objections, I will let the Article III Judge Sarah Evans Barker have the honors:

The State argues that the consent decree is contrary both to state law as well as the public interest. Neither objection has merit.

That is nice judge speak for, "Get the hell out of my courtroom you clown." However, at least we can rest assured that, at least for a few minutes, AG Hill wasn't ass-grabbing all over downtown, as is rumored to be his style.

 

Gambling & Motorsports

The Supreme Court recently ruled that the national ban on sports gambling, with the exception of Nevada, is unconstitutional.

OK.

I am not a gambler, so it really has little effect on me. I have heard the arguments that casinos and gambling outfits are deleterious to communities, but I am skeptical. As a general rule, when it comes to local activity, I prefer to let people do what they want to do. If they want to gamble, then they can gamble. I do hope that people bet with money they can afford to lose, but I say the same thing about people running up bar tabs, credit card debt, etc.

What I wonder about, though, is what effect that will have on motorsports, particularly the Indy 500. How much would it add to the fan experience if you could go and place bets, not only on the winner but also first to wreck, first to pit, most laps led, top-5 finishers, trifecta, slowest finisher, top speed, etc.

I don't have hard numbers to back it up, but I am given to understand that outside of the 500, IndyCar is having financial problems. I have also heard many rumors that the 500 itself is experiencing generally declining attendance. As I said, this is what I've heard, not what I've researched.

Anyway, perhaps auto racing will have somewhat of a renaissance because of this. What do you think?

Stewards of your Tax Dollars

For at least seven years, Indiana has been controlled at all three electoral positions (Governor, House, Senate) by Republicans (including the underwhelming Mike Young). For seven years, the Indiana state legislature (including career politician Mike Young) has passed anti-abortion legislation. For seven years, the ACLU has responded to this anti-abortion legislation by filing lawsuits. For seven years, Indiana's anti-abortion laws have been struck down as unconstitutional by Indiana's courts. 

See here:

As the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana and Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky marked yet another legal victory in a challenge to an Indiana abortion law, the leaders of the organizations say they hope state lawmakers will begin to see what they say is the futility of the annual passage of abortion-restricting legislation.

On Wednesday, the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a provision in House Enrolled Act 1337 signed in 2016 by Gov. Mike Pence that required women to obtain an ultrasound 18 hours before having an abortion.

Or, if you like, see here:

 “Indiana politicians continue devising new and ever more demeaning ways to interfere with women’s constitutional rights and endanger their health,” said Jane Henegar, executive director of the ACLU of Indiana. “The ruling affirms that deeply personal decisions about abortion should be made by women in consultation with their doctors, not politicians pursuing an extreme ideological agenda.”

Finally, there is this little nugget:

 The state’s Legislative Services Agency, in its report on that bill, noted that past efforts to enact abortion restrictions have been successfully challenged by ACLU of Indiana, resulting in the state paying about $290,000 in legal fees to the plaintiffs and their lawyers.

A free piece of advice to our state legislature . . . stop picking fights that you're destined to lose. We know that you love guns and hate abortions. You don't need to spend a quarter million dollars of OUR money (in attorney fees to your arch enemy the ACLU) to prove it.

Let's just agree to disagree, OK Mike Young & Co.? I believe that determining when, whether, and under what circumstances a woman carries a child is her own fundamental right. You believe otherwise. Can we just agree to disagree? Will you please stop picking my pocket to make your point?

Classic Indiana "Legislation"

My first law job was in Chicago, and it dawned on me that the dynamic in Illinois is essentially reversed from that in Indiana. In Illinois, Chicago essentially makes all decisions for the rest of the state, and the rest of the state just has to deal with it.

Contrarily, in Indiana, it has always seemed to me that the rural portions of the state make the decisions that the people of Indianapolis (and to lesser extents, Ft. Wayne, Evansville, South Bend, etc.) just have to deal with it.

Well, today I got an email from my state Senator Mike Young (boooo!). The notable portion of the legislation he touts:

Through the program, the Indiana Department of Transportation matches up to $1 million when localities invest in road and bridge repairs. Counties with populations below 50,000 and cities and towns with populations below 10,000 receive a 75/25 percent match, while counties with populations greater than 50,000 and cities and towns with populations greater than 10,000 receive a 50/50 percent match. 

So, to be clear, our Senator pushed through and now touts legislation that he presumably voted for that punishes his own constituents for having the temerity to live in a populated area, that he represents.

This is classic "kids gloving" the rural areas. Are they unable to pick up the tab for their own roads? I thought they were supposed to be "real Americans" who wanted the government to "leave them alone." I thought that Indianapolis was full of takers, per our state representatives? Why is it that the state picks up considerably more, proportionately, for roads in small counties? Add to that the fact that there are fewer people in such small counties, and we have a state government that spends considerably more per person who uses a road on rural routes than on urban ones.

Of course, it's not as though Indianapolis needs the money or anything, as anyone who's driven our pothole-riven roads will aver.

Will someone please run against this empty suit, Mike Young, and give us some real representation?

Those Pence Brothers . . . They're Just so Nice!

Ugh! I think I need to go punch myself in the face just for writing that headline! Hopefully anyone who has ever read this blog recognizes the sarcasm in the title.

Anyway, this recently came to my attention:

Vice President Mike Pence turns nostalgic when he talks about growing up in small-town Columbus, Indiana, where his father helped build a Midwestern empire of more than 200 gas stations that provided an upbringing on the “front row of the American dream.”

The collapse of Kiel Bros. Oil Co. in 2004 was widely publicized. Less known is that the state of Indiana — and, to a smaller extent, Kentucky and Illinois — are still on the hook for millions of dollars to clean up more than 85 contaminated sites across the three states, including underground tanks that leaked toxic chemicals into soil, streams and wells.

Indiana alone has spent at least $21 million on the cleanup thus far, or an average of about $500,000 per site, according to an analysis of records by The Associated Press. And the work is nowhere near complete.

Well, I mean, what's $21m when you're a "christian first, conservative second, and Republican third" here in Indiana? It's not like you're some selfish school kid who wants to, you know, eat lunch or something. Million-dollar pollution problem? Great! Poor kids want lunch? Feed 'em to Rokita!

Kiel Bros. has paid for only a fraction of the overall effort.

OK. So here we are, the Pence family business has imposed tens of millions of dollars on us, the taxpayers, and people are still willing to believe in his so-called "fiscal conservatism." I tell you what, next time I'm looking for someone to get my spending under control, I'm not just going to let him (or her) do my spending for me!

In a statement, Pence’s older brother Greg Pence — who was president of Kiel Bros. when it went bankrupt and is now running for Congress as a Republican — distanced himself from the cleanup costs.

“Greg Pence has had nothing to do with Kiel Bros since 2004. This is another attempt by the liberal media to rehash old, baseless attacks,” campaign spokeswoman Molly Gillaspie said. 

A few things: first off, I forgot that the Pence brothers were multiplying . . . God help us! 

Second, Ms. Gillaspie, perhaps you weren't aware that underground pollution plumes take decades to develop. In fact, I'll bet that someone on one of the Pence teams has already acknowledged this:

Pence spokeswoman Alyssa Farah called the findings “a years old issue” that the vice president has addressed before. She did not elaborate.

So, what is it? Did the pollution occur during the Pence family's "stewardship" of Kiel Bros. or did it occur after? Maybe before? All I've seen is blah blah blah liberal media blah blah blah old blah blah blah liberal media blah blah baseless.

The fact that the company stuck taxpayers with the lion’s share of the cleanup bill rankles some observers, especially in light of the family’s reputation as budget hawks critical of government spending.

You don't say. It's like I've seen this tragicomedy before.

 Greg Pence, who is seeking the vice president’s old congressional seat, has total assets worth $5.7 to $26 million.

Nearly a decade after going under, Kiel Bros. sites still ranked among the top 10 recipients of state money for such cleanups in Indiana in 2013, the last year for which the petroleum industry has reliable spending data for the company. That was out of more than 230 companies seeking cleanup money that year, including major gas station chains with a substantially larger presence in the state.
Founded as an oil distributor by businessman Carl Kiel in 1960, the company expanded into the gas station business. Pence’s father, Edward, joined in the early years and, by the mid-1970s, rose to corporate vice president.
Mike Pence says he worked for the business — which mostly operated under the name Tobacco Road — starting at age 14. But it was his brother who took over after Edward Pence’s 1988 death and eventually became president.

Just so we're clear: the Pence family made a ton of money running this company. This company cut costs by polluting our air and water. Now we get to pay to not be poisoned while the Pence family gets to go and bring their special sauce to the nation as a whole.

 When an underground tank leaks, companies are liable for the damage, but Indiana has been especially amenable to using public money to pay for heavily contaminated soil to be excavated and for high-powered pumps to suck toxic liquid and vapor from the soil.

The state’s payout limit was $2 million per site until Mike Pence signed a 2016 law as governor, increasing it to $2.5 million. In 2016, Indiana paid out nearly two-and-a-half times the national average per incident, according to records.

I for one can't imagine why the state can't afford to do such trivial things as reform its child welfare issues, after a mere 15 years of studying the issue.

Pence 2018: Starve the kids and poison the water!

Taking the Ball and Running

I love Indianapolis as a whole nearly as much as I love Speedway. It constantly perplexes me, however, that there isn't much that's particularly memorable about Indianapolis, food wise. For a long time, I have believed that perhaps that is because Indianapolis is a test market for regional or national restaurant corporations; they test new concepts here and have sufficient budget to both be able to fail without financial catastrophe while simultaneously setting an artificially high bar for survival for local concepts.

Recently, I read a great piece in the Urbanophile that made me question whether I had thought this entirely through. The piece discusses the diverging fortunes of Nashville Hot Chicken and Hoosier Breaded Pork Tenderloin.  I highly encourage anyone to click through and read the entire article. A few snippets should you forego the opportunity to click through:

First, about Nashville "Hot" Chicken:

In other words, it’s possible that this dish has been around a while in some form in the local black community, but what we know today as the Nashville hot chicken is from the 70s or 80s. A Midwestern reader with longstanding family ties to Nashville told me a while back that at least through the 1990s he never heard hot chicken mentioned there. I read that Nashville hot chicken is now supposedly popular around the south, but having spent extensive time in Alabama 10-15 years ago, I never once came across it there.

I have no reason to doubt this analysis, but then again I'm not from the South. I don't recall ever hearing about Nashville Hot Chicken until just a few years ago, though.

Now, as to the Hoosier Tenderloin:

the pork tenderloin is fairly ubiquitous in Central Indiana, where it is on practically every bar and grill menu. 

I can attest to that. I don't know how long the pork tenderloin has been ubiquitous in Indianapolis, but it's been at least the entire time I've lived here (since 2003).

The question, of course, is:

Why was Indianapolis unable to do with the tenderloin what Nashville did with hot chicken?

His answer, essentially, is that Indianapolis doesn't even try.

I again and again see that Southern cities start with little to nothing, and yet what they do have they treat as the greatest things of all time. As illustrated by Nashville hot chicken, they’ve also looked at their often neglected black community as a source of local cultural identity.

The Midwestern cities not only fail at this consistently, they typically don’t even try. There are tons of regional food products in the Midwest – Chicago style dogs, St. Louis pizza, etc. – but other than Chicago’s deep dish pizza, they have been dramatically underexploited in the marketplace even as these cities say that they are very keen to raise their brand profiles.

Interesting.

Being a litigator (and thus having nothing whatsoever to do with tourism, or the friendlier side of humanity generally) I don't really know what to say about this. Nonetheless, it is worth considering. It also gets me a-thinking about what it is, aside from racing, that Speedway hangs its hat on. I get that the 500 is, in the immortal words of Joe Biden, "a big f**kin' deal." Nonetheless, what is the "thing" about Speedway during the other 350 or so days per year? Food? Festivals? Sport? Music?

Shameful

When I last lived in Ft. Wayne (2013-2014), I heard constantly about how the "good conservative folks of Northeastern Indiana" would do this and that, would always act politely, gathered the facts before acting hysterically, etc. This was always pointed out in juxtaposition to Obama (a nation turns its lonely eyes to you Barack Obama). Among the things that the "good conservative folks of Northeastern Indiana" have been doing lately, apparently, is this:

Fort Wayne's Planned Parenthood Health Center is closing effective today after several years of increased harassment and intimidation.

“I'm pretty angry about this,” said Christie Gillespie, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky. “This is not how decent and compassionate people behave. These are actions of harassment and intimidation that are done in the name of faith, religion and Jesus.

“It's an awful day for the Fort Wayne community. We will be back stronger.”

The Fort Wayne location at 3914 W. Jefferson Blvd. does not perform abortions and has four employees.

Gillespie said the community is losing a trusted health care provider that conducted tests for early diagnosis of cervical, testicular and breast cancer, provided birth control options and tested for sexually transmitted diseases.

Gillespie said the tactics used by Allen County Right to Life and other area groups go far beyond protesting outside the facility.

Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky provided copies of a mailer sent to Fort Wayne neighborhoods where a Planned Parenthood nurse practitioner worked.

It included her name and picture and said “There are killers among us.” It said the woman enabled “child killing by coordinating abortions off site.” It also gave her home address.

Absolutely disgusting and shameful. If, as they say, you are judged by the company you keep, then this list of people should be judged for keeping company with Allen County Right to Life and its shameful tactics.

NOTE: I haven't even addressed the fact that Fort Wayne Planned Parenthood (a) does not provide abortions but (b) provides no/low-cost STD screening. Perhaps someone can explain to me how these so-called "right to life" groups are targeting abortion and not conducting the so-called "war on women" with these kinds of tactics directed at clinics that don't provide abortions?

Bootstraps and Ladders

I hear clueless well-intentioned members of my parents' generation (Baby Boomers) often lamenting that "the kids these days" want everything "given to them" and they're "afraid of hard work." While I point out to them that in the early 1980s, my father had one mortgage payment (our family home), most people of my generation carry three (home, health insurance, student loan). While I fully recognize that members of my parents' generation paid for health insurance through the 1980s and 1990s, the cost of same at that time was comparable to county tax withholdings, whereas it is now comparable to a mortgage payment.

In light of that, I offer this quote from a recent piece in The Atlantic:

 Drawing almost no attention, the nation crossed an ominous milestone last year that threatens more economic polarization and social division: For the first time, public colleges and universities in most states received most of their revenue from tuition rather than government appropriations.

This historic shift away from tax dollars funding the bulk of public higher education comes precisely as the nation’s youth population is crossing a succession of milestones to become more racially diverse than ever. As statisticians would say, it’s an open question whether these twin trends represent an example of causation or just correlation. But whether resources are shrinking because diversity is growing, or the two trends are proceeding independently, their convergence is still a dangerous development—not only for higher education, but also for the nation’s economic future.

I used to have a coach who would give us a similar speech before big games, the theme of which is "this is the time to define what kind of competitor you are." Similarly, I worked for a litigator who told me before a big trial that "now is the time to define what kind of a lawyer you are."

Well, with respect to funding for higher education, "this is the time for us to decide what kind of a country we are." Are we a country that believes that education is worth spending money on, or are we the kind of country that treats education like any other consumer product, i.e. you can have it if you pay for it? Do we treat education as a public good or a private indulgence?

As for me, I intend to stay on the side of history that is willing to pay taxes for education for other people's kids. As for me, I saw my property tax bill and noted that I contribute somewhere in the $550-$600 for the entire year to Speedway Public Schools. This is less than I pay for health insurance for a month and I fully intend to give generously to Speedway Public Schools going forward. I believe that education is a public good. That someone I've never met is well educated has positive spin offs for me, whether that is in the form of higher tax receipts, innovation, or simply keeping that person away from a life of crime (that would eventually involve me providing room & board, i.e. state prison).

Anyone who has read this blog knows my feelings about public education, that I am a supporter. My question is, though, what is the argument against funding public education? Surely there are those who believe that we as a society should not do so. What is the line of reasoning for that?

Todd Rokita - Indiana's Resident Jackass

Another day, another reason to think poorly of Representative Todd Rokita.

First, this, from Rep. Rokita's web site:

Representative Rokita is pro-life and believes that life begins at conception.  He strongly believes that to encourage a culture of life rather than one of death, tax dollars should not be spent on abortions or to fund organizations that encourage it. 

And this:

In 2017, he voted to pass the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.  He was a cosponsor of this bill to prohibit abortions after 20 weeks of fetal age.  

He lists numerous "pro-life bona fides" on his web site. If you have a strong stomach, check it out for yourself. Of course, that is Rep. Rokita's public side. Today, the Ft. Wayne Journal Gazette provides us a glimpse behind the curtain:

a political action committee affiliated with Rokita has given $9,000 to the campaigns of a fellow Republican lawmaker who, years before his election, had approved of abortions for his future wife and a woman with whom he had an affair.

The Fund for American Exceptionalism has made four financial contributions since 2014 to the re-election campaigns of Tennessee Rep. Scott DesJarlais, according to campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. 

Who is this Scott DeJarlais? Well, it's a good thing we have "the internet" so we can look him up:

 The anti-abortion, pro-family Tennessee congressman who pushed his patient and mistress to get an abortion also agreed that his wife should have two, according to court transcripts released Thursday.

Those documents, from GOP Rep. Scott DesJarlais’ 2000 divorce proceedings, paint a lurid picture of a doctor who had multiple affairs with coworkers and patients — at least one of whom he prescribed pain pills for — while he was chief of staff at a local hospital.

Or we could maybe find this out about Rokita's buddy:

A Tennessee congressman who supported his ex-wife’s decision to have two abortions, voted this week for a bill that would ban late-term abortions, according to news reports. 

We could go on and on about DeJarlais just as we could go on and on about Rokita.

Bottom line: everything I've heard about Rep. Rokita makes me a bit sick to my stomach. My parents used to tell me that I should be careful about who I hang out with, because "you're judged by the company you keep." Perhaps Rep. Rokita should think about that long and hard, though I suspect Rep. Rokita relies on his constituents not knowing or caring about his ongoing hypocrisy; I also suspect he is well aware that, short of hell freezing over, there is nothing he could ever do to get my vote.

School Comparisons

For the first time, the Indiana State Board of Education has released a study comparing the effectiveness of charter schools versus traditional public schools.

Before getting to the real meat of this post, I note that the Indy Star has precisely zero mention of this report on its home page (the main page right now discusses how the Indiana Lottery often ends high-prized scratch-off games before awarding all prizes . . . an issue of importance I'm sure, but I value a quality education for my children (and the rest of the children in this state) over getting something for nothing via the lottery, but that's just me).

I had to go to the Ft. Wayne Journal Gazette for some actual (what do they call that?) reporting. Some highlights:

As of the 2016-17 school year, there were 93 public charter schools serving 44,444 students. That is about 4 percent of total enrollment in the state.

Good to know that baseline number.

On enrollment, it found charter schools enrolled more free-and-reduced-price-lunch students but fewer special education students and English-language learners.

On performance, it found charter students are doing better in improvement on state tests but worse when it comes to passing the test. 

OK. That seems like fair reporting. I've always believed that charter schools cherry pick their students, but perhaps it's a bit more complicated than that. Similarly, the school choice advocates I know maintain that charter schools perform better, but you can see that too is a bit more complicated than a bumper sticker slogan.

In accountability grades, charter schools received more A's and fewer F's than similar traditional public schools.

I question that statistic. It would seem that given the disparities in numbers, traditional public schools would have both more A's and more F's. After all, charters only account for 4% of total enrollment in the state.

All four virtual charters received an F grade in 2016-17.

And, above, we have the award for the most predictable outcome.

Superintendent of Public Instruction Jennifer McCormick said other states focus a lot of quality and not “choice for the sake of choice” and asked about charter school closures.

Twenty-three charters closed between 2011 and 2017. 

23 huh? There are currently 93 operating, and 23 more have closed in the past 6 years? If we have a total of 116 charter schools opening since 2011 and 23 have closed, that is a closure rate of nearly 20%. That is pretty distressing. What happens to that 20% of charter students? Are they then dumped back into public schools after missing a year or more of instruction in their destined-for-closure charter school?

Over all, I think that charter schools can be a positive force for good; it all depends on how they are implemented. A former teacher myself, I was always concerned that charter schools would take what was the figurative equivalent of working at a GM factory in the 1970s and turn it into the figurative equivalent of working at Wal-Mart. Conversely, a charter school could be the figurative equivalent of a small law firm . . . it does one or two things really well and is owned by the teachers (as law firms are owned by the lawyers).

Food for thought. I'm hungry.

 

Tackling an Actual Problem

It is a nice reprieve from all of the voter ID laws that seem to never be "tough enough" for their proponents to see that the Indiana legislature is tackling a bona fide problem:

County election boards that beef up security around voting equipment and elections will be able to seek reimbursement for their expenses under a bill approved by a state Senate committee Monday.

Senate Bill 327 requires counties to make sure their voting systems follow new security procedures and allows county election boards to apply to the Indiana Secretary of State for full or partial compensation of any resources or staff implemented to meet the new standards. However, it does not say where the money is coming from.

I don't claim that this is a perfect measure, but I do know that a doctor I know opines regularly that "the enemy of 'good' is 'better'." It is good to see that the IN State legislature is trying to solve an actual problem, as opposed to the usual exercise in "solutions" looking for problems to justify themselves.

Let's applaud a step in the right direction.

Geo-Engineering - Interesting Proposal

Being Speedway's Resident Liberal (I guess), I'm sure it is no surprise when I say that I (a) believe the global climate is changing; (b) believe that this change is anthropogenic; (c) global climate change is problematic, from a human existential standpoint; and (d) we should do something about it.

My initial instinct has always been to advocate for "lesser impact" living where possible. Reuse; Reduce; Recycle, as they taught us in school. I read an interesting article tonight in The Atlantic, which I highly recommend. A few highlights:

For the past two years, Wolovick has studied whether a set of targeted geo-engineering projects could hold off the worst sea-level rise for centuries, giving people time to adapt to climate change and possibly reverse it. He is exploring whether building underwater walls at the mouth of the world’s most unstable glaciers—huge piles of sand and stone, stretching for miles across the seafloor—would change how those glaciers respond to the warming ocean and atmosphere, dramatically slowing or reversing their collapse.

If they work as planned, these large walls could make glaciers last as much as 10 times longer than they otherwise would. In rudimentary simulations, the walls make a glacier that would collapse in 100 years last for another millennium.

More and more, I find myself thinking that my own focus on preventing global climate change, or at least minimizing it, has perhaps blinded me to the other end of the stick, so to speak, as to solutions. We not only need to focus on living more sustainably, but we also need to focus our building codes and engineering projects with an eye toward mitigating what we have already done.

The idea referenced above is interesting to me because it takes for granted that upon which we do agree, i.e. that the glaciers are melting. It then moves forward from a position of pragmatism. What can we do that will minimize this problem?

Another idea that occurs to me is that, particularly near rivers, creeks, and streams, we ought to be building and refraining from building in such a way as to promote the natural function of creekbeds: absorb and purify water. Reclaiming wetlands goes right along with this. I used to live in Ft. Wayne, and there is an enormous wetland directly south, and a little to the north of, Engle Rd. there. This used to be a fallow field that could easily have been sold for commercial development; it was right off U.S. 24/W. Jefferson Blvd., which is kind of the big E/W thru-way in the Fort.

Anyway, the wetland is more than just hippy-dippy tree-hugger stuff. Directly to the southeast of the wetland is the largest landfill I have ever seen. The landfill is more or less built on an enormous, industrial, clay shower floor that drains to a series of pipes. Imagine all of the pollution in that drainage, but it has to go somewhere. Hence the wetland. I am given to understand that this landfill drainage ("leachate") is filtered a few times, in various ways, and then sprayed out over the wetland. The landfill operators get an environmental-donation tax benefit; migratory birds get a stopping point; the landfill gets drained; the water gets cleaned. We can only hope that this is a win-win.

I am meandering off the point, though. Go read the article in The Atlantic. 

More Feeding at the Trough

Senator Brandt Hershman (R-Buck Creek) is leaving the Indiana legislature to go to work as an "attorney" in Barnes and Thornburg's Washington, D.C. office.

A quick look through Sen. Hershman's biography  reveals a man who was first elected to the Indiana legislature in 2000. Thereafter, and while serving in the state legislature, Sen. Hershman advocated for small government all the while attending law school on the government's dime (Todd Young, anyone?). Apparently, small government and self reliance is good for all of us "little people," but when it comes to getting perks from the government, Sen. Hershman exempts himself from his pious urgings regarding self reliance.

Now, of course, having spent nearly two decades in the Indiana statehouse, building connections with the largest law firms in the state (including but not limited to Barnes & Thornburg); after using the state government to pay for his law school (a nice $75,000 gift); after repeatedly cutting taxes on large law firms' corporate clients; after piously proclaiming that he works "for the people," "doing the people's business" for all of these years, he takes a job at one of said large law firms' D.C. office.

Does Sen. Hershman have any experience actually practicing law, as opposed to writing it?

Does Sen. Hershman have any reason why he should practice law in D.C.?

Is Sen. Hershman actually going to practice law in D.C. as opposed to doing that other thing that nobody likes to say out loud (psst, "lobby")?

When will we wake up and realize that these so-called "conservative" lawmakers that we routinely send to our state legislature are serving nobody's interests except their own and their corporate masters'? Don't get me wrong, I have no problems with someone making a living; however, when he makes his living in a manner that is absolutely counter to his public proclamations, it's the hypocrisy of the whole thing that irks me so much.

For anyone interested to know who has bought Sen. Hershman, and for how much, the list of his donors is here. It would be interesting to see how his donor list overlaps with his future lobbying activities, wouldn't it?

More Kudos to Gov. Holcomb

I note that Gov. Holcomb has issued twice as many pardons in his first year in office than Mike Pence did in his entire time in office. Perhaps that is because Gov. Holcomb ran for governor of the State of Indiana to be the governor of the State of Indiana. Novel concept . . . running for an office to occupy that office, as opposed to using it as a springboard for the next step.

Anyway, here is a portion of the story from the Indiana Lawyer:

I note Gov. Holcomb's pardons exist in stark contrast to our drug-warrior/prosecutor Attorney General Curtis Hill, who's never seen a counterproductive criminal justice policy he doesn't like. I could rant about him for a long time, but for now, I want to commend Gov. Holcomb for his rationality and mercy toward his fellow man.

Shameful

Lawrence County, Indiana, used to have a needle exchange program. This program was, so far as I can tell, part of the greater effort in Southern Indiana to battle the fallout from the opioid epidemic. Recall a few years ago when Scott County, IN, had such a needle/opana problem that it had one of the highest AIDS/HIV rates in the nation.

Even Mike Pence eventually got on board with needle exchange programs, if belatedly, as a necessary means to save lives.

Well, Lawrence County (i.e. Bedford) just ended their program. That's bad enough, if you ask me. I would be willing to pay a bit more in taxes to keep such a program going; I would also be more than willing to stop just ONE corporate tax giveaway to keep it going. However, if the community generally can't afford the program, I get it. Lord knows there are a lot of things that I can't afford, so I go without.

However, from what I can tell, Lawrence County did not end this program because of finances. Here is what WishTV reported:

[C]ounty Prosecutor Michelle Woodward told the commissioners she couldn’t support a program that facilitates illegal drug use.

Madison County ended its two-year-old needle exchange program in August after officials in the central Indiana county voiced similar concerns.

Well, color me shocked. A prosecutor sanctimoniously approaches the drug epidemic from a law enforcement perspective and wants to arrest/prosecute our way out of the drug problem (because that has worked so well for the past 40 years!).

Here is what NBC reported:

Rodney Fish, one of the council members who voted against keeping the needle exchange program going, said he does not approve of needle exchange programs and cannot condone the county’s sponsorship of one.
“I did not approach this decision lightly. I gave it a great deal of thought and prayer. My conclusion was that I could not support this program and be true to my principles and my beliefs.” “It was a moral issue with me. I had severe reservations that were going to keep me from approving that motion,” Fish said.

So, to be clear, Mr. Fish views this as a moral issue and, as a result, votes to ensure that more people overdose and die. I will never understand this view of the world, even if I live to be 100 years old. Real world decisions have real world consequences. Burnishing one's ideological credentials at the expense of some of the most powerless members of our society is shameful. However, NBC soft peddled Mr. Fish's approach here. 

This is what Vox reported:

Before he cast his vote, Fish quoted the Bible — specifically, 2 Chronicles 7. It says, “If I shut up heaven that there be no rain, or if I command the locusts to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among my people; if my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”

Well, we all have to answer to St. Peter some day. So, Mr. Fish, I speak directly to you when I raise the possibility that St. Peter asks you about your vote to kill this program; about your justification for it and what you have to say for yourself. Please, consider the possibility that "They were drug addicts and sinners, and they didn't deserve help" may not be a sufficient answer.

Just consider it.

any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee

On Taxes - An Ongoing Series

I see that the national political debate has moved from healthcare to taxes. Oh boy!

Tax policy is a rather complex topic, as pushing on taxes in one area creates results in an often-unrelated area. For example, if we do away with the mortgage interest deduction, that makes buying a house less tax preferred and probably hurts (a) the mortgage origination market; (b) the realtor industry's bottom line; and (c) the value of your home. If you don't get to deduct the interest you pay on your mortgage, perhaps you're less likely to take out a huge mortgage just because you can.

Anyway, I don't want to get too bogged down in that at the moment. Today, I'd like to talk about why I give a damn about whether other people's taxes go up or down.

Someday, I'm going to try to send my children to college.

This will likely (hopefully) be a state school, such as IU or (God help me) Purdue.

These schools get their funding from the State of Indiana.

The State of Indiana gets its budget backfilled by the federal government.

With less money coming from the feds, the State has less money to support public colleges. These public colleges have to fill their budget somehow, and that generally involves tuition increases. I attended IU in the late 1990s for $1,500/semester; I got a 50% tuition break because my mother was a nurse for IU Health, so most people paid roughly $3,000/year.

Today, tuition and fees total $10,534/year. That is roughly 350% of what it cost when I went there, and this does not include the ever-rising cost of living in Bloomington.

By contrast, median wages for college graduates have fallen since I graduated from IU in 1999.

So, to review, college has gotten 3.5X more expensive since I graduated, and the wages of the person expected to pay for the next generation's college education have, at best, remained stagnant. Do I want public aid to colleges cut? Hell no!

This is but one reason why I do NOT support the current plans on offer regarding tax "reform."

I assure you, dear reader, that there are plenty more reasons to come.