Sen. Mike Young & Hate Crime Legislation

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

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

Anyway, the pertinent language out of committee was this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quidam Stultus non Sulvit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just a thought.

 

Read THIS, if nothing else today

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

A few highlights:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Sen. Young - The National Version

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

But on to Todd Young.

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

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

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

This is a classic

Outsider indeed!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts on Expanding Medicare

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

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

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

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

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

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

A thought.

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

For Those Who Missed It

WTHR Reports:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have questions:

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

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

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

Musings on Libertarianism

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

I tend to believe it's not so simple.

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

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

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

"Workforce Quality" - per the Indiana Chamber of Commerce

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kevin Brinegar

President, Indiana Chamber of Commerce Indianapolis

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

Thoughts on the State of the Union

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Bit More About Defamation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indiana: America's Wal-Mart?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Libel and Defamation

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

Garbage, I tell you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

More on Mike Young

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I won't hold my breath.

Sen. Mike Young and his "Priorities"

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

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

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

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

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

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