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

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

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

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

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

Clearly my feelings on prosecutor tactics are unambiguous.

My Favorite Punching Bag

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

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

Pure bullshit.

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

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

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

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

More on Conservative Snowflakes

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

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

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

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

Sheila Kennedy, per usual, says it best:

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

The Indiana General Assembly has protected you. 

Sometimes, you just tip your cap.

Today's Sign of the Apocalypse

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

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

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

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

Sen. Young - The National Version

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

But on to Todd Young.

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

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

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

This is a classic

Outsider indeed!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Workforce Quality" - per the Indiana Chamber of Commerce

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kevin Brinegar

President, Indiana Chamber of Commerce Indianapolis

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

A Bit More About Defamation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indiana: America's Wal-Mart?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Libel and Defamation

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

Garbage, I tell you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

More on Mike Young

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I won't hold my breath.

Sen. Mike Young and his "Priorities"

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Karen Pence

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

A few thoughts:

1. This is not about Freedom of Religion

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

2. This is a Revealed Preference

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

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

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

She revealed her preference.

3. This Feeds a Stereotype

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

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

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

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


Conclusion

TableTopJoe Out!

Why People Hate the Media

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this really the new standard? 

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

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

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

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

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

This is called compromise. Remember the word?

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

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

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

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

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

Truth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back at It

During the Obama years, I was continually scolded by my Republican friends who would say that "Bush is gone" and "the current economy is Obama's responsibility." "If Obama didn't want to be in charge, he shouldn't have run."

Generally, these scoldings would come after I point out such inconvenient truths as:

• W, not Obama or Clinton, was president on 9/11
• W inherited a budget surplus and left trillion dollar deficits to his successor
• W's successor was Obama . . . he had trillion dollar deficits on his first day in office

I also thought that it was the worst idea imaginable to demand austerity during a recession. 

Did we learn nothing from the Great Depression? 

I argue with my "conservative" (i.e. "Republican") friends all the time about what ended the Great Depression. I insist it was a combination of the New Deal and WWII; my Republican friends refuse to credit FDR or government with success, ever insist that it was solely WWII. 

Whether I'm right or they are, however, it is clear that it was government spending that brought this country out of the Great Depression. With that in mind, I was incredulous that they would then demand that the government cut, not increase, spending during a recession. I could go on and on about Keynesian theory, but I'll save that for another day.

Today, I want to talk about bad faith, cynical argumentation. I always want to impute good faith to my counterparts in any argument, particularly one about our great nation. However, when I saw profligate spending and tax cutting for 8 years, from 2001 - 2009, a HUGE recession in early 2009, and subsequent demands to cut spending thereafter, I couldn't help but question the good faith of the demands for spending cuts. 

If only there was a way for me to figure out whether the concerns over deficits were sincere or not. I wonder what would happen if the people who were demanding that spending be cut during a recession (i.e. 2009-2013 or so) were given full power during a fairly strong economy (say, in 2016 or so). Would they cut spending, raise taxes, and close the spending deficit?  

Unless you've been living under a rock for the past 20 years, I think you know the answer to that:

the real test came after 2016. A complete cynic might have expected economists who denounced budget deficits and easy money under a Democrat to suddenly reverse position under a Republican president.

And that total cynic would have been exactly right. After years of hysteria about the evils of debt, establishment Republican economists enthusiastically endorsed a budget-busting tax cut. After denouncing easy-money policies when unemployment was sky-high, some echoed Trump’s demands for low interest rates with unemployment under 4 percent — and the rest remained conspicuously silent.

Huh. Well, you  know what they say: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. I think the real problem, for at least a generation, is that now nobody will take anyone's deficit concerns seriously.

Where's the tea party? Either it was a reaction to a black president and its participants are now walking around in red "Make America Great Again" hats or they have disappeared from the political scene, fully aware that their ideals have been sold out.

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.

California Fires

I tend to think of some, but not all, of the wildfire problems in California in the same vein as I do the hurricane problems in FL. "Don't you kind of ask for these problems?" For example, if you live in Malibu, didn't you kind of ask for this? If you live on the coast in FL, didn't you kind of ask for the hurricane?

Now, we see reports of private fire fighting forces rushing in to aid the wealthy landowners in parts of California, while the less-wealthy residents of interior California are essentially homeless. I recently read a review of a book entitled "Let Malibu Burn." The basic point was that the broader, less-fortunate public, should not have to spend one cent of public money to rebuild mansions on sites that will inevitably burn every 20 years or so.

I think the same thing holds true for Malibu Mansions and Miami Mansions. You chose to live there. You can handle the consequences. I find it endlessly frustrating that people tend to embrace libertarian "every man for himself" ideals right up to the point that they need help from the broader public. I find this particularly frustrating when the well-to-do embrace that ideal as to poor people's healthcare but reject it as to their own mansions.

Election Eve Plea to the Baby Boomers

Our politics are different. I get it. I am a liberal progressive. You are staunchly conservative. I get it.

However, please think about your children, grandchildren, and parents when you pull the lever tomorrow. Remember that your parents stormed the beach in Normandy to defeat fascism. Remember that they stood down both communism and fascism in their lifetimes. Remember that you were raised in an era where what was best for the country dominated political discussion, not what would best stick it to the other side.

Remember that you were raised in an era when the "fairness doctrine" forced users of the public airwaves to provide equal time to opposing political viewpoints; as opposed to now, where you can listen to the radio in Indiana all day and, with the exception of Lake Co. where Chicago stations are available, you will never hear a spirited defense of liberalism; rather, you just listen to straw men being knocked down, day in and day out.

Remember that you were raised in an era when how well the working class was doing was more important than how well the financial markets were doing; we now live in a state that recently passed a Right to Work law.

Remember that you were raised in an era that had considerably less national wealth than now, yet managed to provide more and better public services. We now live in an era where college costs tens of thousands of dollars per year and cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are looming (to get the debt under control following the $1.5T tax-cutting orgy that has reduced my taxes by approximately $50).

Remember that, from George Washington through Jimmy Carter, we built up a national debt of $1T. That number is now nearly $22T. (And no, it wasn't all Obama's doing, either).

Remember that your kids had to incur debt approaching a mortgage to get that college education that you financed with a summer job. Remember that your kids have another mortgage payment to pay for health insurance, whereas when you had young kids health insurance was approximately as costly as county income taxes. Remember that your children, for all of their faults, are raising your grandchildren. Remember that your grandchildren will also need healthcare and an education, both of which are becoming increasingly unaffordable.

Remember that your generation was given much by its forebears; and its forebears was given much by theirs.

Remember, as we all do, that Bill Clinton lied when he claimed "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Recall that Barack Obama needlessly exaggerated when he said "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." (He should have qualified that with "For 90% of those affected" but the opportunity to do that has past). Recall, also, that these lies stick out because they were anomalous. Recall that, as of Friday, Donald Trump averaged 30 false or misleading claims per day

Recall that no previous president in your lifetime has gleefully promised to lock up his political opponents. No previous president in your lifetime has publicly declared that the media is the "enemy of the people."

Remember that the world as it is now is a result of your lifetime of choices, just as it used to be the way it was because of your parents' choices.

You did not vote for the policies that led to Vietnam or the Great Depression, but you did vote for the policies that led to Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Great Recession.

If you like the way the world has changed since the "good old days," then keep voting the way you have since the "good old days." If you think that your grandchildren are getting a worse deal than you did, perhaps you think about changing your voting behavior.

America will be here longer than you and/or I will be. When you vote, please think about the world you intend to leave behind.

On Halloween

I don't like Halloween, and I'm not quite sure why. One would think that it's right in my wheelhouse: Pagan celebration? Check. Creepy stuff? Yes. Occult? Roger, Roger. Celebration of villainy? For sure!

Getting away from the theme of the holiday itself, I also think that the rituals of Halloween are, themselves, positive. Kids going through the neighborhood, collecting candy from benevolent elders who are keeping an eye on the neighborhood to try to keep it as safe as possible? Count me in.

Unfortunately, I feel like Halloween in my neighborhood is underperforming. A minority of houses pass out candy, and I believe that's deleterious to the neighborhood. I fully understand that the neighborhood is teeming with trick-or-treaters who don't live here on Halloween. I guess I view it as a positive that they want to come to my neighborhood on this holiday. This is the destination. I hope I'm a good host. Nonetheless, numerous people keep their lights out and don't answer the door. It's a bummer.

Keeping to the point, thought. . . I just don't like Halloween. Probably because of the makeup and costumes. Is there a Grinch for Halloween? Unfortunately, I think that "he is I and I am him."

"Standing"

I wrote this for the Speedway Town Talk, and I figured I'd post the un-edited version here:

I was approached recently[1] by a guy who “almost” hurt himself when slipping in a store, and another guy who was cut off by a truck driver “who could’ve killed someone.” Of course, in my line of work, the first question they asked me was whether they could bring a lawsuit.

                The answer is, generally[2], “No. You can’t.” My reason? “You don’t have standing.” The logical next question is, “What is standing? What does that mean?”

                Well, the answer is simple and infinitely complicated. Having standing means that you’re not asking the court to decide a hypothetical question. It means that you have actually been wronged and, at least assuming you can prove your allegations, are entitled to and can expect redress for your injury.

It means that the guy who almost hurt himself when he slipped in the store hasn’t been wronged and isn’t entitled to anything by the court; the guy who was cut off by the trucker wasn’t killed or hurt in any way . . . it’s not his fight. The doctrine of standing has nothing to do with the actual “merits” of the case. It doesn’t decide whether the store where the guy slipped was negligent; it doesn’t address whether the trucker was indeed driving like a maniac. It just asks whether there is an actual controversy to be decided by the courts.

                To have standing, one must generally demonstrate three things: (1) the Plaintiff suffered an “injury in fact,” i.e. a concrete, discernable injury, as opposed to a hypothetical or conjectural one; (2) the injury noted in element #1 is fairly traceable to some conduct of the defendant; and (3) a favorable judgment in court would fairly address the injury. See the late Justice Scalia’s opinion in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife if you are interested in more reading on the matter.

                As a fine (yet absurd) example, I can’t sue Satan (yes … the actual Prince of Darkness) for enticing Adam to eat the apple and thereby harming humanity, of which I am a member. Even if the Supreme Court of the U.S. sides with me, my injury is “non-justiciable.” There’s nothing they can do.

---

[1] Which is to say, “In my lifetime.”

[2] As always, this is not legal advice, as the world offers infinite circumstances that are open to interpretation.

I would like to point out that one of the reasons I write about standing is the overwhelming desire by so many people to insert themselves into a controversy even though it's not their controversy. I wrote recently about people trying to drive the new pet store in Speedway out of existence. It's not their controversy. I hear about people who want to do "something" about the way Zore's drivers drive. It's not your controversy.

Bottom line: if you don't have standing, then butt out.