I am nowhere near being an expert, or even particularly well informed, about the internal politics of Iran. But, even so, I wanted to flag yesterday’s election there as a potentially important development. Also, initial media reports seem to have fallen down on the job. There was a Presidential election there, and the two main players were the incumbent, Ahmadinejad and Moussavi, the challenger.

Officials reported a suspiciously high vote for Ahmadinejad, and Professor Juan Cole explains why these vote totals are marked with badges of fraud. In fact, his blog generally is probably the best starting place for analysis of the election. Our media seems to be walking this election back into the “disputed” column, but initial reports were unduly credulous. Probably the Muncie Star Press is not the place I want to go for my international reporting, but its headline – at least for awhile – was “Ahmadinejad wins Iran election in landslide.” Even at present, I think major outlets are referring to Ahmadinejad as the “winner” before providing the information that the election is “disputed.”

Probably they should simply report that he will likely retain control regardless of whether he won the election or not. The New York Times has an article on the continued protests.

I’ve been writing long pieces about Mourdock’s challenge to the Chrysler bankruptcy on behalf of the Indiana funds. But, for me, it comes down to this: How would Indiana get more money if Mourdock had won?

Perhaps I could see something other than futility in his actions if that piece of the puzzle was filled in.

Option 1 = Liquidation – this yielded less money for Indiana than the fiat sale.

Option 2 = Fiat sale – this was the challenged action.

Option 3 = None has been articulated – let alone shown to be reasonably available or more profitable to secured lenders.

The wailing and gnashing of teeth has been about the UAW getting something. Given the options, it was as if Mourdock would have been happier if Indiana got *less* money so long as the UAW got nothing.

And, just for the record, the bankruptcy court explained that the UAW and the U.S. Government was not receiving value for the claims they had based on debts incurred prior to the bankruptcy. Rather, they were receiving stakes in the New Chrysler based on value they were providing to that company after the bankruptcy was filed.

This one isn’t going to have an overarching theme. This is just some stuff I saw in the papers this morning:

The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette offers an opinion criticizing Treasurer Mourdock. It was pretty clear from the beginning he was going to lose. It would have been a different case if there was evidence that senior bondholders were getting stiffed by the Fiat deal, but that was the highest value available to them. Liquidation would have gotten them less. This was known to Mourdock before he began his $2 million legal adventure which appears to have been politically motivated.

Rep Jacque Clements responds to the lawsuit filed against her by Clinton County having to do with allegations of conflict of interest involving work she did for tax software vendors while she was county auditor and making recommendations for the county concerning the tax software. Her response, according to the article, seems to boil down to “nuh-uh” and some vague pronouncements about a political witch-hunt. I didn’t see her press conference, so I don’t know if the lack of specifics was in the original or just has to do with the reporting. She did not take questions after the press conference.

The Indiana General Assembly starts its special session today. Democrats don’t much like Gov. Daniels’ proposals on school funding since it relies primarily on federal funding for increases in education and there is a significant disparity in how different schools are funded – suburban schools generally do better in terms of funding than city schools. Democrats are also pushing for a one year budget which strikes me as a little gimmicky. Perhaps they are gambling that Republican spending priorities won’t play quite as well in an election year?

Before I get into this, I’ll put out an open invitation to remind me about left wing acts of violence in the U.S. during the Bush II years. I was trying to remember and honestly could not. I remember lots and lots of puppets, but no real violence. I could be forgetting something.

In the last few days, we have seen two horrible acts of violence from the right extreme of the spectrum: the assassination of Dr. Tiller and now the assault on the Holocaust museum. The former was committed by a pro-life zealot and the latter was committed by a white supremacist. Neither of these guys represent the mainstream of anything. But they do reflect the consequences of dehumanizing those with whom we disagree.

A number of commentators in the blogosphere and in political life got their hackles up when, as Lalita Amos over at the American Values Alliance notes, the Department of Homeland Security issued a memo entitled: “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” (The report is available at the linked site.) The report found that “the economic downturn and election of the first African American President present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.”

The report noted two distinct types of right wing extremist groups: those motivated primarily by hatred of religious, racial, or ethnic groups and those motivated primarily by anti-government zealotry. The report also noted the guy in Pittsburgh who had been stockpiling firearms because of the “Obama is going to take our guns” fearmongering and a healthy dose of paranoia about Jewish one-world government and ended up shooting three Pittsburgh cops. And there’s the “let’s blame the Jews” angle to the bailouts and decline of manufacturing.

The report foresaw a potential return to the 90s when the militia movement gained followers by stoking fears about gun control, free trade, declaration of martial law (remember the black helicopters?), and social issues like abortion, race, and gays. End-times prophecies will return to prominence. (Though on the latter, it seems like the end-times nutjobs have been chattering throughout the 90s and the 00s.)

Finally, the report notes some of what was effective in the 90s: after Timothy McVeigh bombed the court house in Oklahoma City, there was simply a lot of scrutiny of the militia movement and people distanced themselves. In addition, law enforcement efforts and an improvement of the economy tamped down the crazies a bit as well.

The reaction to this report? On the right, a number of politicians and commentators chose to feign outrage and take it as an assault on gun ownership and veterans generally instead of as a warning against those who feed on hate and paranoia. Why these folks would choose to blur the line in that fashion is left as an exercise for the reader.

See, e.g., the ACLJ’s demand that DHS retract its warning about pro-life extremists. Or Representative Lamar Smith’s apparent inability to discern a difference between extremists exploiting fears about gun control and non-extremist supporters of the right to bear arms. And, of course, there was the Savage Weiner’s frivolous lawsuit claiming the memo “violated his First and Fifth Amendment rights by ‘attempting to chill their free speech, expressive association, and equal protection rights.'”

Instead of reading the report for what it was, these people and organizations refused the distinction between extremism and hate groups on the one side and people with legitimate policy differences on the other side. And that’s the problem. People of good will need to reject the intemperate shitheads and kick them out of the club. Violence should not be a political tool, and a corollary should probably be that rhetorically talking about violence should not be a political tool.

So, when pro-lifers hear a guy like Randall Terry saying stuff like this:

When I, or people like me, are running the country, you’d better flee, because we will find you, we will try you, and we will execute you. I mean every word of it. I will make it part of my mission to see to it that they are tried and executed… If we’re going to have true reformation in America, it is because men once again, if I may use a worn out expression, have righteous testoserone flowing through their veins. They are not afraid of contempt for their contemporaries. They are not even here to get along. They are here to take over.

If you hear a guy saying something like that, you run him straight out of the village. And, the next time a report like this comes out, perhaps the correct reaction isn’t to suggest it’s a conspiracy between Obama, the Jew-bankers, and the reverse vampires to enslave America under the communist thumb of the country with Obama’s *real* birth certificate.

Update Craig over at Reverent & Free points out that Indiana’s own Mark Souder (IN-03) was part of the baying pack of hyenas refusing to acknowledge the report’s distinction between extremists and others. Dan Burton (IN-05), and Steve Buyer were with the pack. Mike Pence (IN-06) demanded a probe of the report.

Looks like Blog Indiana 2009 is scheduled for Thursday, August 13 through Saturday, August 15. The calendar is still developing, but the location is going to be at the IUPUI campus in the Informatics and Communications Technology Complex. I went last year, and it was very entertaining. I met a lot of good people and even got a little bit of convention schwag.

Probably I will only be able to make the Saturday session. I recommend it to anyone out there with the time and inclination.

The temporary stay entered by Justice Ginsberg has been lifted. In a per curiam opinion (pdf) the Supreme Court denied the Indiana funds’ application for a stay in the sale.

The burden for a stay is a steep one, and the Indiana funds didn’t meet it: the applicant has to demonstrate a likelihood that four Justices would consider the challenge sufficiently meritorious to grant certiorari; a fair prospect that the court will consider the lower court’s ruling erroneous; and a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of a stay.

I’m not 100% sure, but I suspect Mourlock and the Indiana funds can keep challenging the decision, but not on an expedited basis — or at least they can petition the Supreme Court for certiorari. I’m not sure what the posture was before the Second Circuit. That level of appeal could be exhausted. But the Supreme Court’s decision today isn’t a decision on the merits.

In a sad follow up to my November 14, 2008 blog post entitled “Welliver’s to remain open,” I am now reading in the Richmond Palladium-Item that Welliver’s will close June 28.

As I mentioned in the previous post, the restaurant holds fond memories for me due to its epic smorgasbord, where every so often, my family would trek from Richmond to Hagerstown to feast.

According to the most recent article:

Welliver’s Smorgasbord Restaurant, a fixture in downtown Hagerstown, will end operations later this month, its owners confirmed Monday.

Employees were informed Saturday and the phone answering machine tells about the impending closing June 28. A sign announcing the closing also is posted at the entrance.

Owners Janie Welliver and Mary Welliver can’t keep it open without help, said spokeswoman Aimee Foust, who is Janie’s daughter.

“We’re in debt everywhere,” Foust said. “It’s not anything we want to happen.”

That’s unfortunate.

The Economist has a State Watch article on Indiana. (h/t Michael Ausbrook). The article focuses on Indiana’s economic health. I think its praise for Governor Daniels is overstated, but it’s undeniable that we are doing better than Michigan. For his part, Governor Daniels is quoted with a (to me) bizarre metaphor about Indiana and the recent economic troubles.

The recent downturn, he says, “is like being the best-looking girl in school, then they called off the prom. But the music will start again.”

Looks fade and the prom is a brief event which is why I wouldn’t have used this as a metaphor for Indiana’s long term economic prospects. On the other hand, I very much enjoy Indiana economist, Morton Marcus’s metaphor:

Less powerful unions and ample foreign investment make the state what Morton Marcus, a prominent local economist, calls “the middle finger of the South thrust into the North.”

The article suggests that Indiana has one foot in the past and one tentative, wobbly toe in the future. We have been very dependent on manufacturing and this latest round of GM pull backs is going to take its toll. But, not all is lost. We have a promising position in the life sciences with Lilly and medical device manufacturers like Zimmer. And, Indianapolis is having its troubles, but it’s in much better shape than Detroit (not exactly high praise).

Definitely worth reading the article.

Strange Maps has an interesting map, showing the migration of the the mean center of the the United States’ population over the years. From 1880 or 1890 through 1940 that center was in southern Indiana. Since then, it’s been moving westward and a bit southward. Now it’s in south-central Missouri.

This migration of population centers, incidentally, has been used as an argument for why Indiana should be on Central Time. Since most of the population is west of us, it makes sense to keep more of our business hours overlapping population centers to the west. On the other hand, I suppose political and economic power hasn’t necessarily moved westward in lockstep with the country’s population.