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.

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.

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! 

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?

SINO (Shutdown In Name Only)

Am I supposed to care about the latest (3rd in 2018, for the record) "shutdown" of the U.S. Government? Is all of this drama and blame game supposed to change my mind about substantive policy in this country?

I don't . . . and it doesn't.

For starters, the only reason I care about the "shutdown" is that it pisses me off that a bunch of politicians decide they want to have confrontational tactics to please their base; when such tactics result in real people being laid off; when such tactics underscore an already incessant notion that "public servants" are not admirable figures striving to better our society but instead "beaurocrats" to be derided, degraded, and discarded.

I think that if our politicians want to have a temper tantrum and shut down the government, then this "partial" shit has to stop. STOP making it convenient to throw a monkey wrench in the works. If we're shutting down the government, then lets shut it down. Stop sending SS checks. Stop making medicare payments. Stop paying the military (except those on active duty in a combat zone). Stop the customs office. Stop immigration services. Stop oversight of ports. These are easy.

I think the question is how far we want to go with this mechanism.

Do we shut down law enforcement? Do we stop the overnight lending at the fed?

Do we shut down courts?

What about prisons?

Anyway, I don't have all of those answers, but I adamantly believe that "shutdowns" should actually SHUT DOWN the government, at least in the main.

As to the second part of my initial inquiry: does this change my mind one iota with respect to domestic policy? Resoundingly not! I don't take philosophical guidance from bumper stickers and intellectual toddlers. To convince me to change my mind on substantive matters, one must show a measure of maturity and understanding of the issue before I engage in any sort of debate on the merits.

Economic Development Question

I hear often about "economic development" plans from localities that are essentially subsidizing private projects via tax dollars, either directly by backing bonds or indirectly by giving tax deferrals. Either way, these subsidies amount to millions of dollars spent by localities in furtherance of private industry.

Two examples of taxpayer-subsidized projects come to mind: Lucas Oil Stadium and the Wilshaw development. I have said before that if the Town of Speedway wants public parking, it should just build a parking garage instead of borrowing the money to build one, lending that money to a developer, then leasing the garage to the developer in exchange for revenue from the garage. It's a rube goldberg device.

I also hear justification for Lucas Oil Stadium in the form of "look at how many jobs it creates" with all of the hotel, restaurant, convention, etc., traffic created by the facility.

I suppose my big question is this: Why don't we just directly invest in those jobs by doing things like hiring teachers? Paying for their health insurance? Hiring construction workers to build better roads? (the NW corner of 465 comes to mind, but that's just because I commute past that area every day).

In a nutshell, it appears that there is a bipartisan consensus that government spending to create jobs is OK. In that instance, why settle for low-wage ALICE ("asset limited income constrained employed") jobs? Why not go for good middle-class jobs with benefits? It seems that we could do so if we cut out the middle man, i.e. Jim Irsay or Loftus/Robinson.

Just a thought.

Brett Kavanaugh - Where We Are

Either reader of this blog knows my feelings on Donald Trump, movement conservatism, and the national Republican party. It will come as no surprise that I oppose Brett Kavanaugh's elevation to the Supreme Court.

I also believe that whether he is ultimately confirmed or if it is somebody else on Donald Trump's infamous list of Federalist Society Reactionaries, the legal outcomes will be the same.

So, I can't help but ask why the numerous defenses of Judge Kavanaugh from the right? Regardless of whether Kavanaugh or someone else on the list is confirmed, we can be assured that this 5-vote conservative majority will:

• refuse to find any burden, whatsoever, to be "undue" under the Casey test;
• will likely continue to create exceptions to, if not wholly repeal, the exclusionary rule;
• will hamstring the ability of administrative agencies to participate in rule-making and adjudication, effectively rendering them toothless advisory boards;
• continue to use the 1st amendment as protection against pretty much any meaningful regulation of either the economy or political spending; and
• elevate the 2nd Amendment to the level of sacrosanct and essentially (to the extent it has not already been done) read out the part about "a well-regulated militia."

All of these are longtime conservative policy goals. All of these goals would be advanced by pretty much any one of the Federalist Society judges, as these judges have been groomed in conservative ideology for decades.

So, why the defense of Brett Kavanaugh?

I don't know. I hear people say that he is an innocent man who has been slurred, but I have a few points to add to that:

1. This is not a criminal investigation. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" and "presumed innocent" are fine phrases when we're talking about depriving someone of his freedom. They have no place in what is a job interview for a lifetime, exceedingly powerful, position. Nobody on the right demanded that Hillary Clinton be "presumed innocent" of all of the charges they hurled at her (BENGHAZI!!! EMAILS!!!). I don't recall Donald Trump presuming that Barack Obama was born in the United States. On a personal level, if I was looking to hire a babysitter and heard a rumor that a particular babysitter liked to get drunk on the job and steal from the houses at which she babysat, I wouldn't be looking for corroborating evidence, giving a presumption of innocence, or demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The rumor would suffice for me to look elsewhere. My babysitter does not have the power to interpret the U.S. Constitution and determine the breadth of my rights for the remainder of his/her life. A Supreme Court Justice does.
2. In litigation, there are numerous presumptions that we can make based on testimony. A generally known principle in criminal litigation is that a false exculpatory answer, when proven to be false, is pretty strong evidence of the accused's knowledge of his own guilt. Judge Kavanaugh made some fairly ludicrous statements: Beach Week Ralph Club refers to his weak stomach; Renate alumnius [sic] had no sexual connotations, even though Renate Dolphin (the self same Renate) is insulted by the reference; Devil's Triangle is a drinking game (that nobody has ever heard of) and not a sexual reference (that is fairly common). The list goes on and on, but these statements really stretch credulity, and he offers them as exculpatory. While I am not entirely convinced that he is lying, I have significant misgivings about it.
3. Similarly, while a polygraph is not strong evidence of the truth of a statement, it is strong evidence of the speaker's belief in the truth of such statement. Dr. Ford took a polygraph. The results do not demonstrate that her statements were true, but they demonstrate that she believed them to be true. Has Judge Kavanaugh been subjected to a polygraph?
4. Dr. Ford repeatedly requested an investigation into her allegations. Brett Kavanaugh said he would "do whatever the (Republican-controlled judiciary) committee wanted." If he is so innocent of these charges, why is he not demanding an investigation into them? It says a lot to me that when two people are making mutually exclusive assertions, and one of them wants the matter investigated and the other doesn't.

I could go on, but I'm pretty sure the point is clear. 

I also note the defenses of Judge Kavanaugh. Some say "he didn't do it," but given Dr. Ford's credible testimony, Kavanaugh's defenders have a difficult time simply saying she's lying. So, they come up with a series of defenses:

• It actually happened, but Dr. Ford is mistaken about who did it;
• Even if it did happen as Dr. Ford says, it was a long time ago and we should forgive his behavior;
• Even if it did happen, he never actually raped her so it doesn't really matter.

I am not particularly convinced by any of these rationalizations. 

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

Interesting Tit-for-tat Hypothetical

It seems rather clear to me that GOP lawmakers have made a bargain with President Trump:

• On the one hand, they will look the other way with respect to his considerable personal corruption and that of his administration and campaign (see: Trump Hotel D.C., Emoluments Clause, Pornstar Payoffs, Profiteering from the Presidency as demonstrated by the financial information we know about Ivanka/Jared, Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, et al)
• On the other hand, he give the GOP establishment the policy that it wants: tax cuts, conservative judges . . . the rest of the stuff can be forgiven so long as its not too egregious or costs them elections

Given the probable, though by no means certain, takeover of the House of Representatives later this year, I wonder if they too are willing to accept this kind of Faustian bargain. Allow Trump to continue to marinate in his swam in exchange for more money to social programs and cuts to the military?

Something to think about.

Facts, Pesky Little Things

"Truth isn't truth!"

In light of this weekend's utterly amazing disregard for actual facts, I thought I'd do a bit of research on what "facts" are being debated in the current race for a seat from IN in the federal Senate.

Note, this is simply me regurgitating what I've read, but I will source the conclusions:

• Joe Donnelly says that Mike Braun has supported two proposals and a lawsuit to end health insurance coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. MOSTLY TRUE
• Joe Donnelly states that 43 of his legislative proposals have become law, including 21 since Donald Trump took office. MOSTLY TRUE
• Senate Leadership Fund (a Republican Super PAC) says, "Sen. Donnelly's family got caught outsourcing jobs to Mexico, and 'Mexico Joe' profited $80,000. MOSTLY FALSE

The remainder of the quotes I saw "adjudicated" as above were from the primary. I have less than zero interest in discussing Todd Rokita.

Additionally, PolitiFact did a primer on Mike Braun's business practices. Note, this is not a partisan hit job on him but rather an analysis as to the claims being made by the Donnelly people. You can read the whole thing here. A few notable quotes:

Braun is the CEO and owner of Meyer Distributing, an auto parts distribution company, and Meyer Logistics, a trucking company, based in Jasper, Ind.

The U.S. Labor Department found Meyer Distributing violated the Fair Labor Standards Act 26 times. The violations were related to unpaid overtime work for 25 employees between December 2008 and December 2010. Meyer Distributing had to pay $39,402 in back wages. The company settled one lawsuit with a fired employee in 2009 related to the same issue.

I would point out that these back wages settlements amounted to a bit more than $1,500/worker. While this may not be much money to a multi-state trucking tycoon who can dump hundreds of thousands of dollars into his own political campaign, $1,500 may have been the difference between making bills for a quarter and losing the home for some of Mr. Braun's employees. I know no more than the allegation and the settlement, so I won't discuss the merits of the case. I do know that lawsuits like these often settle for one reason or another, and the settlement does not make Mr. Braun or his company guilty. 

Nonetheless, when you brand yourself the "champion of the little guy," it's a bad look to be stiffing your employees to the tune of 2-3 weeks' pay (maybe more, given their low wages).

Another point hit on in the piece was Donnelly's accusations about distributing parts made in China. I guess my point is: who cares? Most everything that gets sold has component parts made elsewhere. It's a modern economy.

What I do care about more than the original location of Mr. Braun's company's products is his legislative voting record. I found this to be interesting:

As a state legislator, Braun voted against an amendment that allowed local governments to take back property tax incentives from companies that relocate outside Indiana.

So, I may be thinking about this wrong, but my impression of this bill is that if, say, the Town of Speedway gives Allison Transmission tax incentives to stay where it is, and the incentives last 10 years, then Allison should at least be obligated not to relocate to Illinois or Ecuador for 10 years. Apparently Mr. Braun, as indicated by his own voting record, feels otherwise. Campaign rhetoric can spin one way or the other; the funny thing about votes is they speak for themselves. As I've argued during depositions (with a slight variation for the present circumstances), "We will stipulate that Mr. Braun's vote means what Mr. Braun's vote means."

There's also this about Joe Donnelly:

Braun rebutted with Donnelly’s own record. Donnelly profited from a family arts and crafts business that relied on cheap Mexican labor to produce dye for ink pads. Import Genius recorded 35 import shipments from China for the company between 2008 and 2018. Panjiva, a similar import tracking company, found 31 shipment imports since 2011.

Domila McFarlane, a manager at Panjiva, noted the company had likely received further shipments by air, but U.S. data only looks at maritime shipments.

Donnelly sold his stocks in the company following the AP report on ties to Mexico in July 2017. 

Apparently inscrutable behavior in search of politics is the new norm; either that, or utilizing a modern import/export system as designed is just what business people do. Perhaps the takeaway here is not that business actions in self interest are inherently good or evil but rather that the system we design to influence and/or regulate those decisions needs to be improved.

We could certainly go on, but then again, can't we always?

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.

On the Awfulness that is Nancy Pelosi

I don't think my reader(s) have any misunderstanding as to where my political sensibilities lie. However, I too am kind of sick and tired of Nancy Pelosi. Given that the Democratic Party styles itself as the young, the working class, and minorities, it is a bit disingenuous to have a party leadership that is nearly uniformly white, septuagenarian, and wealthy. However, I have to hand it to Nancy Pelosi that, as a politician and a member of leadership, she has been very effective at keeping her caucus unified (mostly) and in line (mostly), and raising money for candidates.

She has also been remarkably free of scandal, particularly given the GOP demonization of her and its ability to manufacture scandals out of thin air (Emails! Benghazi!).

How does she compare with recent GOP leaders in the house?

• Newt Gingrich - shut down government, impeached Bill Clinton for having an affair while having an affair (as his wife lie dying of cancer);
• Dennis Hastert - molested teenage boys
• Paul Ryan - no real scandal, but poses as a deficit hawk and his sole achievement as Speaker is to explode the budge deficit during an ostensibly "good" economy
• Tom DeLay - convicted of money laundering
• John Boehner - uses his position as congressional leader to stifle any reformation of nation's marijuana laws, retires, promptly takes a seat on the board of a medical marijuana manufacturing company

As I said, I am a bit tired of Nancy Pelosi and would like to see new Democratic leadership. (To that point, I'm a bit tired of Ann DeLaney as well and would like to see some new Democratic leadership in Indiana . . . perhaps it could be something "other" than a permanent super-minority party).

However, given Rep. Pelosi's counterparts, she doesn't look all that bad.

"Socialism" - Defined Down

I have noted that the more people decry attempts to moderate the extremes of capitalism as "socialism," the more people will become open to the concept. If "socialism" means gulags, count me out. If it means affordable healthcare and good schools for my kids, it doesn't seem so bad.

Recently, Paul Krugman made that precise point in the New York Times:

for decades the right has tried to shout down any attempt to sand down some of the rough edges of capitalism, whether through health guarantees, income supports, or anything else, by yelling “socialism.” Sooner or later people were bound to say that if any attempt to make our system less harsh is socialism, well, they’re socialists.

The truth is that there are hardly any people in the U.S. who want the government to seize the means of production, or even the economy’s commanding heights. What they want is social democracy – the kinds of basic guarantees of health care, protection against poverty, etc., that almost every other advanced country provides.

Read the entire thing here. 

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?

Why Healthcare Will be Nationalized

This:

 As Jonathan Chait writes, “having spent years insisting they had an army of wonks who could design a better alternative to the Obamacare ‘train wreck,’ the Republican plan of attack has dissolved into a rearguard sabotage campaign with no pretense of doing anything to help the poor and sick afford medical care.”

The simple fact is that though they don’t like to admit it, they just disagree with the moral premise that the government has an obligation to ensure that people get the health care they need. And that’s going to mean doing it the old-fashioned way — by enrolling as many people as possible, including, ultimately, everyone in government programs that keep operating unless Congress actually repeals them.

The notion of a compromise strategy that would allow Democrats to achieve their basic goals while being flexible and industry-friendly with the means was appealing on a number of levels, but it depended fundamentally on the notion that Republicans would treat such a compromise as stable. The reality is they won’t, so Democrats will have to choose — either abandon a generations-long principle (which isn’t going to happen) or move forward into the single-payer future.

Note to self: compromises only work if the other side is willing to stick to the deal. If they don't, you go all in. This is no different than a settlement conference. If I demand $50,000 to settle during a settlement conference, and that is my last demand, you can bet your bottom dollar that, if the matter doesn't settle, I'm asking the jury for at least $150,000. The same goes in politics. Walk away from the deal at your own peril; sooner or later, the worm always turns.

Random Information, Apropos of Nothing

This is part of Article I of the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon:

Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.

The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:

1. Making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
2. Withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
3. Approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;
4. Interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;
5. Approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities;
6. Endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States;
7. Disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability;
8. Making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or
9. Endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Not that any of this is relevant to the present moment. Continuing in the irrelevant articles of history, here is a copy of the Articles of Impeachment against Bill Clinton:

Article I: States that in his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice, in that William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. States that contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury.

Article II: States that in his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice in that William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony as part of a Federal civil rights action brought against him.

Article III: States that in his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding.

Article IV: States that using the powers and influence of the office of President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has engaged in conduct that resulted in misuse and abuse of his high office, impaired the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, and contravened the authority of the legislative branch and the truth seeking purpose of a coordinate investigative proceeding, in that, as President, William Jefferson Clinton refused and failed to respond to certain written requests for admission and willfully made perjurious, false, and misleading sworn statements in response to certain written requests for admission propounded to him as part of the impeachment inquiry authorized by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States. States that William Jefferson Clinton, in refusing and failing to respond and in making perjurious, false and misleading statements, assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives and exhibited contempt for the inquiry.

The highlights in both (other than the Article headings) are mine.

I post this information so that we have primary source evidence as to the nature of the last two impeachments. Personally, I don't think that this country needs another impeachment. However, if/when "The Don" has articles of impeachment brought against him, or if such measures enter the public discussion, we should have a historical backdrop for same. As is perfectly clear, I disagree with President Trump. However, pursuing policy with which I disagree is not an impeachable offense. Further, as I stated time and again during the Obama administration, "unconstitutional" (and "liberalism" for that matter) is not analogous to "stuff I disagree with."

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?

Jackassery Loves Company

So, I see that Jim Bopp (the nice man who gave us Citizens United and Bush v. Gore) has decided to put his cloven-hoof stamp on the Curtis Hill matter.

A few quotes, first from the Indiana Lawyer:

Supporters of embattled Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill have created a nonprofit to raise money for his legal defense amid allegations the Republican drunkenly groped a state lawmaker and three legislative staffers.

Indiana attorney James Bopp Jr. and former Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Linda Chezem said Monday that the nonprofit accepts tax-deductible donations for paying Hill’s legal bills. 

OK. That quote is more or less factual. Given my thoughts on Jackass Curtis Hill, I think the next quote is money:

Hill’s backers say he has been treated unfairly. 

I wonder how many of Hill's prosecutorial targets feel that his investigations into them were unfair.

By way of contrast or additional information (take your pick), here is how the Indianapolis Star covered the story:

 Jim Bopp, a high-powered Republican attorney, announced Monday the creation of Fairness for Curtis Hill, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization formed to collect tax deductible funds for Hill's defense.  

Some tax and campaign finance experts, however, questioned whether the new fund could even operate as a charitable nonprofit under the law. Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, a law professor at Notre Dame, said a 501(c)(3) charity can't benefit one person. Usually defending public officials from allegations also isn't considered charitable, he said.

Get ready for the AM Radio/Conservative Victim Complex . . . THE IRS IS TARGETING US BECAUSE WE'RE breaking the law CONSERVATIVES!!

Bopp, who is best known for representing Citizens United in a U.S. Supreme Court case that overturned restrictions on political spending by corporations, nonprofits and labor unions, said contributions to the fund will be tax exempt and will come strictly from private individuals and entities, not taxpayers.

Well, I suppose that's good news -- I don't have to pay to defend Attorney General Hands McGee.

But the contributions will also be secret, he said. The source of donations to the defense fund do not have to be disclosed publicly, unlike contributions to political campaigns.

Well, I certainly can't see anything untoward about allowing wealthy people to make undisclosed donations to high-powered political figures!

So, in sum, we have two of the most repulsive figures in Indiana politics (and unfortunately in the Indiana legal community) teaming up to provide "process" for the powerful . . . how much of this "process" has Jim Bopp or Curtis Hill ever secured for the poor, downtrodden, among us? To ask the question is to answer it.