A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

Masson's Blog

Water Wars

by 4 Comments

Indiana’s Citizens Action Coalition has written a paper explaining how the water “LEAP” project in Boone County, relying as it does on transferring massive amounts of water out of Tippecanoe County and shipping it down state, reveals “severe deficiencies in Indiana’s water and economic development policy.” A couple of the key points:

  • The shell-game with water to enable the LEAP district is fomenting public dissent and a water war, contrary to sound water policy.
  • From a policy perspective, the state views water strictly as a tool for near-term, opportunistic economic development, not as a resource that requires strategic and systematic consideration to secure water availability for communities into the future and to ensure water bill affordability for ratepayer

I plan on reading it in more detail when time allows, but I’m reminded of Indiana’s gas boom.

The people of that time were profligate with what seemed like an unlimited supply of gas. They were spectacularly wasteful. “It became fashionable to erect arches of perforated iron pipe and let them burn brightly day and night for month after month.” There were calls for conservation that were largely ignored. (“In 1893 the State Inspector of Natural Gas wrote, ‘The waste has been criminal and the day of repentance is fast approaching, and can only be delayed by practicing the most rigid economy and unrelaxed efforts in the husbandry of this valuable resource of our State.’”)

…

By 1902, however, the wells were starting to fail and the falling pressure was allowing salt water to creep in. Companies that had re-located to take advantage of the cheap, readily available gas were forced to close. The boom ended as quickly as it started.

Anniversary of Pearl Harbor

by 1 Comment

This is the eighty-second anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Quoting a Wikipedia article I copied 18 years ago, “the Imperial Japanese Navy made its attack on Pearl Harbor on the morning of December 7, 1941. The surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii, was aimed at the Pacific Fleet of the United States Navy and its defending Army Air Corps and Marine air forces. The attack damaged or destroyed twelve U.S. warships, destroyed 188 aircraft, and killed 2,403 American servicemen and 68 civilians. Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto planned the raid as the start of the Pacific Campaign of World War II, and it was commanded by Vice Admiral Chuichi Nagumo, who lost 64 servicemen. However, the Pacific Fleet’s three aircraft carriers were not in port and so were undamaged, as were oil tank farms and machine shops. Using these resources the United States was able to rebound within six months to a year. The U.S. public saw the attack as a treacherous act and rallied strongly against the Japanese Empire, resulting in its later defeat.

Back in 2016, I wrote:

We were fighting against Imperial Japan, a place where militaristic nationalists had taken control of the government and stoked notions of Japanese exceptionalism. The America fought for by the Americans 75 years ago stood for a country (in principal if not always in fact) governed by the consent of the governed where all men are created equal. The home of the brave.

We should always be mindful that, as Edward R. Murrow pointed out, “we are not descended from fearful men.” When our own militaristic nationalists come peddling fear and exceptionalism, we should strike them down just as we struck down Imperial Japan so that the dead of Pearl Harbor shall not have died in vain.

As I mentioned a few days ago, I recently finished the book “Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan” by Herbert Bix. It contains quite a lot about the events on the Japanese side that led to the decision to attack Pearl Harbor. From what I read, it doesn’t sound like anyone on the Japanese side particularly thought that they could win a war against the U.S. even if the Pearl Harbor attack was wildly successful which, from their perspective, it was. Rather the internal logic and rewards of domestic politics led the decision makers down a path they couldn’t seem to escape. Particularly after invading China some years earlier, they had the tiger by the tail. Resistance to the militaristic nationalists was punished politically and sometimes with physical violence. And it doesn’t seem like Hirohito himself had any particular appetite for curbing their impulses. He seemed to share their goals in many cases.

After capturing Manchuria in 1931, Japan was bogged down with a full scale war in China by 1937. It increasingly needed resources to keep up the war and invaded French Indochina in 1941 (with permission of Nazi-occupied France). The U.S. froze Japanese assets in the U.S. which effectively ended Japan’s ability to purchase oil from the U.S. This caused Japan to seek to wrest control of Singapore from Great Britain and the Philippines from the U.S. in order to establish control of the oil in the Dutch East Indies. To facilitate those moves and mitigate U.S. ability to retaliate, it attacked Pearl Harbor.

The Japanese seemed to have known that they had no clear exit plan once they attacked the U.S. The hope seems to have been that they would strike a devastating blow, expand rapidly, and then when the U.S. geared up for war, they could back off from some of their acquisitions into a more defensible position and then negotiate a more favorable peace than would have been possible had they not attacked in the first place. But, among other things, Japan had trouble retreating to more defensible areas in a timely fashion. Ultimately, the U.S. regrouped, engaged its overwhelming industrial capacity for military purposes, and won a critical battle at Midway. One military historian called it “one of the most consequential naval engagements in world history, ranking alongside Salamis, Trafalgar, and Tsushima Strait, as both tactically decisive and strategically influential.” After that, it was a matter of time before Japan would unconditionally surrender. The combination of the continuing military losses, the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the Russian declaration of war against Japan finally broke the Empire’s back and overwhelmed the forces of militaristic nationalism that had precipitated the attack against the U.S. in the first place; compelling Hirohito to surrender on September 2, 1945, in hopes of at least maintaining his status as Emperor even if he was not able to retain so much of his power.

The U.S., primarily under the leadership of Douglas MacArthur, occupied and reshaped Japanese politics until the Treaty of San Francisco in 1952.

Thirty Years Ago is a Safe Space

by 1 Comment

I recently read some discussion about how nostalgia tends to focus on a period about thirty years prior. In the 80s, there was a focus on the 50s; in the 90s, a focus on the 60s; a lot of love for the 90s at the moment. This is not a particularly new idea. I think the most prevalent theory I’ve seen is that the people who create cultural content become dominant about 30 years after their childhood and then make nostalgic content about that period. There’s probably a fair amount of truth to that.

But another aspect that has occurred to me is that it’s probably the sweet spot where the past is familiar but not threatening. Too close to the present and events remain messy and contentious. Too far back and they are alien, potentially uncomfortable, and maybe too sterile to evoke emotion.

Right now, I remember enough of the 90s to be amazed when people talk about “what an optimistic time it was.” In my head, I can’t help but think that Kurt “Voice of a Generation” Cobain was pretty famously not an optimist. Not as culturally pervasive, but “Pump Up the Volume”

“I really don’t see why you can’t be cheerful for one second.”

“I’ll tell you since you asked. I just arrived in this stupid suburb. I have no friends, no money, no car, no license. And even if I did have a license all I can do is drive out to some stupid mall. Maybe if I’m lucky play some fucking video games, smoke a joint and get stupid. You see, there’s nothing to do anymore. Everything decent’s been done. All the great themes have been used up. Turned into theme parks. So I don’t really find it exactly cheerful to be living in the middle of a totally, like, exhausted decade where there’s nothing to look forward to and no one to look up to.“

But, now we can look back and a lot of the things we worried about never came to pass or we more or less navigated the challenges. The good times, good music, good shows, etc. all stand out and the difficult things faded. Or, I don’t know, maybe most people just have the memory of a goldfish.

Book: “Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan”

by 1 Comment

This isn’t exactly “hot off the presses,” but I just finished “Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan” by Herbert Bix. It won a Pulitzer Prize in 2001. I got it for Father’s Day and have been reading it on and off ever since.  (The kids thought I’d be interested because I spent a fair amount of time telling them about Dan Carlin’s excellent Hardcore History podcast series called “Supernova in the East” about the rise of Japan between  1853 – 1945).

The Hirohito book is plenty readable and the subject matter is very interesting. Even so, at nearly 700 pages and with me being mostly unfamiliar with the many personalities involved, it was a bit of a slog. The book spends a good amount of time on Hirohito’s upbringing and sets the stage with enough detail about the Meiji era as well as his father’s reign and how those informed the early part of Hirohito’s reign. One thing leads to another and, before long, Japan’s acquisition of chunks of China is proceeding apace. Then it has the tiger by the tail. Domestic politics were such that Hirohito and those in his circle didn’t see a way (and it’s not clear they had any appetite to do so in any event) to back away from imperial expansionism without support at home collapsing. They seemed to have kind of known that they had no clear exit plan once they attacked the U.S.

The hope seems to have been that they would strike a devastating blow, expand rapidly, and then when the U.S. geared up for war, they could back off from some of their acquisitions into a more defensible position and then negotiate a more favorable peace than would have been possible had they not attacked in the first place. But, among other things, Japan had trouble retreating to more defensible areas in a timely fashion. The WWII geeks will have far more detail about the military history of the period. This has plenty, but the main focus is (as the title would suggest) Hirohito.

Bix makes the case that Hirohito was far more involved in the decision making leading up to and during the war than was acknowledged in the post- war period. Following Japan’s surrender, it was a useful fiction for MacArthur and the U.S. to pretend that Hirohito was mainly a figurehead who, left to his own devices, would have preferred peace. This allowed the U.S. to leave Hirohito in place where he could be influential in getting the Japanese people to come to terms with the post-war status quo. This was beneficial to Hirohito inasmuch as he was allowed to remain on the throne and not be tried for war crimes.

The book mostly ends around 1952 when the Treaty of San Francisco ended post-war occupation of Japan. There is very brief discussion of the next 37 years or so of Hirohito’s life. I’m glad to have read it. I don’t see myself re-reading it.

Indiana Capital Chronicle: Eberhart Pleads Guilty

by Leave a Comment

Following up on an earlier blog post, Whitney Downard, writing for the Indiana Capital Chronicle, has an article reporting that former Representative Sean Eberhart has plead guilty in a gambling corruption case. It looks like he was offered a salary of $350k plus an equity stake in a casino and, in return, he assisted with legislation that reduced casino transfer fees from $100 million to $20 million.

If I’m looking at the right bill, the legislative history of this thing is a little odd. HB 1015 went through the session as a fairly simple bill that expands on existing law making certain indemnity language in design contracts void. A minor change was made in the Senate and the House dissented from the changes. Then the conference committee bill comes along and turns a two page design contract bill into a 55 page gaming bill. The gaming language comes mostly from SB 552 which, before it died would have required a $50 million transfer fee. The legislative history for SB 552 indicates that it went to conference committee but I’m not seeing where any committee report was ever attempted. The conference committee process was always opaque to me, so I’m sure there is some kind of gambit I’m missing. But, off hand, I don’t know what advantage there would be to sticking everything into unrelated HB 1015 instead of just moving forward with SB 552. Nevertheless, that seems to be what happened. And HB 1015 is connected to the text quoted in Rep. Eberhart’s criminal case:

The Senate and House ultimately disagreed on portions of the bill, sending it to a conference committee that threatened to tank the bill. Eberhart, via text with an unnamed person, discussed a female lawmaker holding up the bill.

“… I’ve talked to her 3 different times. Told her I couldn’t believe she would let the bill die because of hold harmless language.

The original HB 1015 indemnity language seems to have been ditched from that bill and passed as part of SB 230 which contained similar if not identical indemnity language as the original HB 1015. I originally went down this rabbit hole to try to figure out if it offered clues as to who the “female lawmaker” holding up the bill because of hold harmless language; but there are too many twists and turns.

In any event, Eberhart seems to be looking at a probable sentence of three to four years, and it seems likely that other charges related to this effort will be unveiled at some point; but as of yet, no new names have surfaced.

Edit 12/04/2023: I appear to have been wrong about the “hold harmless” issue being related to the indemnity language in the original bill that served as a vehicle for the gambling legislation. According to this excellent article by Kayla Dwyer, that had to do with “language that required those relocated casino license holders to compensate Indiana communities that feared revenue loss from relocating casinos or increased competition.”

Nineteen Years of Masson’s Blog

by 7 Comments

My writing here is sporadic at best, and I even forgot the November 15th anniversary; but this blog is still sputtering along after nineteen years.When I started this thing, George W. Bush had just won his second term. Indiana Democrats were ending their 16 year control of the Governor’s mansion and beginning what will be at least a 20 year stretch in the wilderness. I was the father of a one year old and expecting a second child. They are now in college. I was five years into a job with a firm in Lafayette and five years removed from a stretch working for Indiana’s Legislative Services Agency. I’m now in my 25th year working for Hoffman, Luhman & Masson, and LSA is a distant memory. I’ve done good blogging from time to time. However, some of what I wrote makes me cringe where it was glib, snarky, and reductive — hallmarks of the social media which killed the blogging impulse. It seemed fun at the time, but too much of it is corrosive. Probably what I’m most proud of posting was my Bicentennial series where I wrote something like 115,000 words on the subject of Indiana history over the course of 2015-2016.

In any case, here we go into year 20. As Tennyson said:

Though much is taken, much abides; and though
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are,
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

 

Schools are required to adopt procedures to accommodate complaints about “material harmful to minors” in libraries

by 4 Comments

In the waning hours of the most recent session of the General Assembly, a last minute amendment was added to HB 1447 to address the non-existent “problem” of obscenity in school libraries. As I wrote at the time:

There just isn’t a scourge of obscene material floating around our school libraries. The idea that we need to adopt a law creating a procedure to deal with obscenity in school libraries is one of those “the question is an accusation” kind of dynamics. “They wouldn’t need a process if there wasn’t a significant problem would they?”

The language slipped into the bill requires a school to have a process to handle complaints by a parent or community member requesting that a school library remove material that is obscene or is harmful to minors under the respective statutory definitions for each. “Harmful to minors” largely tracks the obscenity language but is slightly broader, so I’ll quote it here:

A matter or performance is harmful to minors for purposes of this article if:

(1) it describes or represents, in any form, nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sado-masochistic abuse;

(2) considered as a whole, it appeals to the prurient interest in sex of minors;

(3) it is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable matter for or performance before minors; and

(4) considered as a whole, it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

It’s good that the new language limits the complaint process to community members or parents of students. It’s also good that the standard is basically an obscenity standard rather than merely something that a person finds offensive.

But the obnoxious element is that it requires the process include a public hearing at the governing body at its next public hearing. So, it encourages grandstanding and, by setting a limited time table for the hearing, discourages deliberation.

Our local school’s upcoming board meeting includes a policy for requesting that material which is obscene or “harmful to minors” (as defined in the Indiana criminal code) be removed from the school libraries. It also includes a related request form. The Indiana legislature’s mandate that schools adopt such policies is largely a waste of time. Like I said, there simply isn’t a plague of obscene material in our school libraries. Passage of this law was not an effort to solve a problem but, rather, part of an effort to create the impression that a problem exists.

But, the General Assembly requires it, and so the school has to comply. On first glance, the proposed policy seems reasonable. If any obscene material or material “harmful to minors” is present, this would be a way to get it removed. On the other hand, I think the policy imposes reasonable barriers that will deter grandstanding about material that does not rise to the legal level for removal. In particular, it forces the person requesting removal to very specifically identify the portions of the book that are obscene and explain why they think so. (Also, it limits requests to people who either live within the boundaries of the school district or have kids in the school.)

Going forward, it’s probably more important than it was to get a good idea of how school board members might approach issues of censorship. To some extent, the school board has always had the power to remove materials it regarded as objectionable. Most of boards would have likely relied on the education professionals and librarians they employ to make a considered decision on such issues. But the legislature now requires more of a direct pipeline from a complaining person to the school board because the new law requires that the “response and appeal procedure established … must require the governing body to review the request at the next public meeting.” Because this gives moral scolds a better platform for demagoguing against material they don’t like, knowing how school board members will react if the issue arises would be beneficial.

“Originalism” is Calvinball

by Leave a Comment

A panel of the 7th Circuit left in place some local ordinances banning assault rifles.

The gymnastics they had to go through even trying to make sense of the Supreme Court’s recent rulings on gun laws were exhausting. (Paraphrasing):

Well, you need to understand the original *intent* but you have to adapt your understanding of the actual firearms to accommodate modern sensibilities. And, to do so, you have to be mindful of the types of regulatory ordinances that were in place in 1791 or maybe it’s 1868 when the 14th Amendment was adopted. One part of the analysis is to determine whether the firearm is atypical of those owned by the general population, in which case, it’s not protected by the Second Amendment; or, if it’s typical and therefore does enjoy Second Amendment protection. If people buy enough of a certain kind of gun, it will magically transform from something the Founders “originally’ sought to protect. Also, this entire body of jurisprudence was invented in the last 15 years.

Like I’ve probably said before, it’s pretty trivial to fiddle with levels of abstraction to get to an “originalist” outcome that you like. The current jurisprudence pretends fealty to the text of the Second Amendment but then, despite the text’s focus on militias, somehow self-defense is the central purpose of the provision. It’s dizzying.

Filed Under: Law

More Casino Corruption: Rep. Eberhart to Plead Guilty

by 2 Comments

Sen. Larry Borst, long time chair of the Senate Finance Committee, opposed expansion of gambling in Indiana. His legislative career ended when he was defeated in a primary challenge by Brent Waltz who ended up going to jail as part of a campaign finance scheme involving casino money. Today, Whitney Downard, writing for the Indiana Capital Chronicle, reports that former Rep. Sean Eberhart is pleading guilty to casino related charges.

Former Shelbyville Rep. Sean Eberhart has signed paperwork to plead guilty to a federal felony charge related to his conduct as a lawmaker, specifically related to Spectacle Entertainment’s bid to relocate two casinos from Lake Michigan to “other areas beneficial to Spectacle.”

In a Friday morning release, the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Southern District of Indiana said he had conspired “with others to solicit and receive the promise of future, lucrative employment with a gaming company in exchange for his support of legislation beneficial to the gaming company.”

It’s been a long time, so maybe I’m overselling Sen. Borst’s opposition to gambling in Indiana. But, based on the resulting corruption, it seems like he may have had a point.

West Lafayette Referendum Passes; Lake County Referendums Struggle

by Leave a Comment

School referendums: where you find out whether people willing to spend money on fancy book learning.

Some good election coverage of school referendum ballot questions from Eric Weddle & Kristen Adair at WFYI and from Aleksandra Appleton at Chalkbeat Indiana. West Lafayette’s referendum was up for renewal for the third time (first passed in 2010 and renewed in 2017) and passed handily with 80.46% in favor (2009 “yes” versus 488 “no.”)  This is down from a gaudy 94.27% in 2017 (2,105 “yes” versus 128 “no”), but that’s not really a fair comparison. The 2017 campaign was a special election where that was the only item on the ballot. The pro-referendum PAC (which I helped) put a lot of effort going door-to-door and making sure people in support got to the polls. This year, the question appeared along side municipal races and the pro-referendum PAC took a more low key approach. As I said in 2017, the need to renew the referendum is a waste of time and effort – it’s make-work by the state. In West Lafayette, there was no appetite to eliminate the current tax rate. The burden is reasonable and the results of that funding have been very good. However, the process is incredibly stressful for school personnel, and it is not conducive to long term planning. In my mind, a better approach would be to leave the rate intact until someone gathered enough signatures to put the question on the ballot. If the community is happy, why go through this process?

On the flip side, of the four referendums that failed last night, three of them were in Lake County: Hammond, Lake Central, and Whiting. (The fourth was a school safety referendum for Bluffton Harrison in Wells County. (Technically, it was four out of the five that failed were in Lake County. Hammond had both a construction referendum and an operating referendum fail.) Correlation is not causation, but as it happens, Lake County is one of the pilot counties in this year’s legislation that requires referendum money to be shared with area charter schools. If the referendums had passed, Hammond would have been the only one required to share because Lake Central and Whiting had their question approved in May before the legislation went into effect. But it’s hard telling how aware the public was of any of these distinctions. Both the operating and construction questions in Hammond went down hard – 24%/76% for the construction question and 21%/79% for the operating question. Lake Central was a squeaker with 49.7% in favor and 50.3% opposed.

Carmel Clay, Hamilton Southeastern, Monroe County, Northeast Dubois, Sheridan, and Fort Wayne were also successful.

I think these school funding questions for localities can turn into virtuous cycles and into death spirals. In West Lafayette, people are willing to fund the schools because they’re good and the schools are good because people are willing to fund them. In other places, the opposite dynamic can take hold: people don’t want to fund the schools because they are bad and the schools are bad because people don’t want to fund them.