Howard Greninger, reporting for the Terre Haute TribStar, has an article entitled Vigo Commissioner Decker agrees to plead guilty to meth charge. The President of the Vigo County Board of Commissioners, David Decker, will resign his position and has “admitted to distributing 3.25 grams of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine.”

Decker became a commissioner in 2007 and has been the board’s president since January 2008. Prior to that, he served on the Vigo County Council from 2000 to 2004. He also had 21 years of teaching experience. Prior to his election as commissioner, Decker was a teacher in technology education at Terre Haute South Vigo High School.

Maureen Groppe, writing for the Gannett News Service, has an article on continued resistance to confirmation of IU Law Professor, Dawn Johnsen, as President Obama’s head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice. Republican opposition to her confirmation stems from her criticism of the office under President Bush — particularly with respect to the dubious justifications for torture — and her history as counsel for the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL).

Senator Lugar recently announced his intention to support her nomination. According to an article by Sylvia Smith in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, he is the first Republican to do so publicly.

Lugar’s support does not guarantee the Senate will confirm Johnsen. Sixty votes are needed to stave off a filibuster, and vote-counters say they are aware of close to 60 “yes” votes for Johnsen, but they are not declaring victory. One Democrat – Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson – has said he will vote against Johnsen.

Now that Arlen Specter isn’t facing a conservative primary challenge, it will be interesting to see whether he will switch positions on this issue in the wake of his defection from the Republican Party. Also, it will be interesting to see if the GOP can hold the votes of supposed moderates, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both Republican Senators from Maine.

Amanda Marcotte has a very interesting entry at Pandagon on the subject of marriage and equality. Specifically, she is critiquing an opinion column in the Washington Post by Mark Regnerus, a sociology professor at the University of Texas who urges women (but only, apparently, women) to get married younger.

Marcotte, as I read her critique, asserts that conservatives want women to get married at a young age because this is an effective way to clip their wings and keep them malleable.

I suppose the good thing is that Regnerus is coming right out and stating a value that social conservatives tend to avoid baldly stating—they desire young marriage (for women), because it’s an effective tool at clipping women’s wings. But this is rarely stated outright. It is the whole reason for abstinence-only and other movements against making contraception available and acceptable to young people, though. The hope is that teenagers will get pregnant and “do the responsible thing”, i.e. they’re trying to use subterfuge to get the desired results.

It’s always tough to paint with a broad brush. I would not be at all surprised if a non-trivial number of social conservatives were motivated by exactly this. But, I suspect another non-trivial chunk of them have not thought deeply enough about their reasoning to have such explicitly sinister motivations. They have simply been taught that chastity before marriage, marrying young, reproducing often, and a structure where the woman’s unpaid labor supports the man’s career is simply the right way to do things and haven’t thought much beyond that. Sort of a “God said it, I believe it, that settles it,” kind of dynamic. And there are others who maybe aren’t vigilant about women’s rights and personal development but who also are not motivated by antagonism toward those things who support the idea of a young, subservient wife because they see it as leading to a more stable society for a variety of reasons and (fairly or not) see the sacrifice of female prerogatives as a reasonable sacrifice.

Regardless of the motivation of those who want a culture in which women tend to get married young, I think Ms. Marcotte accurately describes some of its effects. Why should we bemoan the decline in marriage for women at a young age? Per Regnerus:

[M]arriage wisely entered into remains good for the economy and the community, good for one’s personal well-being, good for wealth creation and, yes, good for the environment, too.

And, particularly for women, per Regnerus again, their “market value” declines with age as does their fertility.

“Market value” depends, I suppose, on the nature of the market and what is being bought and sold. If what is being bought is youthful good looks, inexperience, and pliability, I suppose Regnerus is correct. On the other hand, more mature women probably bring to the table a lot of what more mature men bring to the table — money and maturity among other things. Fertility, it’s true, doesn’t have an unlimited shelf life. But waiting until 25 or 30 probably isn’t going to eliminate your ability to have children with your spouse.

As Ms. Marcotte points out, the critical caveat in Prof. Regnerus’s statement about “marriage wisely entered into” is wisdom. The younger you are, typically the less wisdom you have. More important than innate intelligence or wisdom is the fact that at a younger age you have less data with which to make a decision. You don’t know your preferences, you haven’t experienced the world, and you have less of a notion about the kind of person you are and ultimately would like to be. In the case of women, contends Marcotte, that is more or less the point:

But I’d suggest that Regnerus, especially since he advises that only women marry young and therefore that they marry men significantly older, is not saying that people should be formed by marriage. He’s saying women should be. And the form that forming will take is obvious—the more malleable you are, the more likely you are to give into the pressure to be the support system for you husband, to give up your hopes and dreams to support his. The problem with older women (well, not problem—I’d say solution!) is that they are set in their ways, and that means they have more bargaining power in their relationships. If you already have your career, for instance, you know what you stand to lose if you give into the pressure to give it up. But if you don’t have it yet, it makes it much easier to let your husband’s needs and desires dictate the entire relationship.

I have suggested before that I am a fundamentally lazy person. I will go so far as to work hard now to facilitate laziness down the road. I cannot imagine the work it must take to be married to a woman you have molded and made dependent on you. In my case, I married a woman who, if anything, has a stronger will than my own and who has very definite opinions. If I had not, it seems to me, discussions at home would be so boring as to be not worth having. Additionally, she leads her own life apart from me which relieves me from the responsibility of coming home at the end of the day and having some sort of responsibility to let her live vicariously through my day. Sure, I might end up doing more of the house work, participating in more of the child rearing, and running more of a risk of not getting my way from time to time but ultimately even these things are more rewarding in the long run.

I believe I have a more rewarding relationship with my kids than fathers acting in the traditional mold. When I cook, I find that (surprise!) I love what’s being served for dinner. And, when you don’t get your way all the time, you’re not always to blame when things don’t work out. (And, honestly, I’m laid back enough that I rarely care enough to have a “way” that I need to get.) I suppose the primary way in which my marriage seems to fit the more traditional pattern Regnerus urges is that I am several years older than my wife. We didn’t have kids until I was 32 and she was 27. In my mind, that worked out well primarily because I matured as slowly as I could. I don’t think she would have found me to be a great spouse and co-parent if we had married when I was her age or had kids when I was 27.

Because I was able to burn off some energy before settling down, I don’t have an exaggerated view of what life without those responsibilities is like. I can see that the rewards outweigh the responsibilities. And, I feel like the stability is returned on her side for similar reasons.

I know people who have gotten married young and had it work out spectacularly. And I know people who have gotten married after waiting awhile and had it not work too well. That said, on balance, I think the reasons for waiting awhile to get married tend to outweigh reasons for getting married at a young age and think that Marcotte has the better of this particular argument.

The General Assembly is entering their last scheduled week. A special session is always possible, so this may not be the end of the story, but if they can get the budget and a fix for the unemployment system passed, they should be able to call it a session.

The budget will probably get worked out. They deal with that every two years. From the outside, it seems like the House and Senate are further apart than usual and the Governor is making vague rumblings of disapproval. (Governor – if you’re not going to consider a veto, your “demands” become “suggestions.”) But, I don’t get the feeling that there are any irreconcilable differences. I think the House and Senate will ultimately come up with something because they know they really have to as a practical matter — I’m not going to be one of those suggesting there is an immutable Constitutional requirement that the General Assembly pass a budget. The Governor will have some input but will most likely go along with anything the Senate and the House manage to get down to his office.

The unemployment insurance issue is more interesting. What happens if they don’t pass a change? Does the system seize up and freeze? Do the feds keep funding us? Are the consequences of inaction sufficiently clear to legislators to convince them they absolutely have to get something passed? If they don’t, is unemployment funding alone sufficient to convince the Governor to call a special session? I don’t know the answers to any of these things.

A last bit of significance, more to Indianapolis than to the rest of the State, is funding the Capital Improvement Board — the organization that pays the bills on the Colts and Pacers stadiums — as well as, I believe, other downtown development. If nothing gets done on that, I don’t see a special session in the offing to make it happen.

One money saving technique organizations use is to create a choke point in their bureaucracy in places where their customers might cost them money. Examples that leap immediately to mind are claims processing for insurers and customer service telephone centers — particularly where one of the services might be for customers wishing to cancel a subscription.

The State of Indiana is not blind to this money saving approach. Angela Mapes Turner, writing for the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette has an article on Indiana’s slow processing speed for approving food stamp requests.

During the final quarter of 2008, Indiana’s welfare agency failed to process almost a third of food stamp applications within its goal of two months, falling short of federal guidelines and leaving thousands of Hoosiers waiting for help.

The Family and Social Services Administration blamed its slow processing times on growing pains, an increased volume of food stamp applications and possible client errors.

But advocates for an overhaul of the welfare system say the delays extend beyond food stamps to other benefits and show modernization isn’t working.

My suspicion is that this slow response time is not a but, it’s a feature. Speediness in getting money out the door probably isn’t seen as a virtue. If you can’t beat them on the merits, screw ’em with procedure.

Cases are sometimes delayed because clients do not turn in paperwork on time, not because of agency tardiness. Barlow said that’s one reason why the state sticks with its 60-day authorization period, to allow clients more time.
. . .
“I’ve faxed things to them that they’re requesting. I know I’ve turned it in, but they’re saying that I didn’t,” she said. “It’s just thoroughly frustrating.”

Gill, 38, received one denial letter saying she had missed a phone appointment. She was told she was denied because she missed paperwork deadlines. Then she received another denial, saying she and her husband earned slightly more than the allowable maximum income.

Meanwhile, she was burning through minutes on her pay-as-you-go cell phone with the state’s welfare call center.

“It was such a process. I didn’t feel like an individual,” she said.

Says Indiana Representative Mike Pence:

“I think, rightly understood, the cap and trade legislation represents an economic declaration of war on the Midwest by liberals in Washington, D.C.,” Pence said in a telephone interview.

Pence says that climate change legislation could cost the average American household more than $3,000 a year in higher energy costs.

“An economic declaration of war on the Midwest by liberals in Washington, D.C.” Really, Mike? With tempered, reasonable language like that, it’s hard figuring why the Democrats aren’t much inclined to work with Republicans like Mr. Pence. (Yes, I know, people can find overblown quotes from Democrats and, therefore, they are all equivalently bad.)

But, let’s ignore the language for a moment, and consider whether carbon dioxide emission caps disproportionately affect the Midwest and whether they ought to. Apparently we burn coal for our power more than in other regions. Our pollutants get blown away from us and on to others. It’s not that this legislation increases the cost of our energy production. Rather, it internalizes the cost so that the cost is reflected in the price. In fairness, we really shouldn’t be permitted to offload our costs in the form of pollution, the consequences of which are borne by third parties who neither produced nor consumed the coal-generated energy.

Nick Werner, of the Muncie Star Press, brings us the story of a civic-minded business owner in Delaware County. Apparently this business owner regards the requirement that he maintain his properties and keep them from becoming a blight on the community as “communism.” Obviously, I only have this story to go on, so maybe Mr. Hicks is being treated unfairly, but from this story it appears he regards civic duty as being a step away from Bolshevism.

The city’s Unsafe Building Hearing Authority on Tuesday leveled $10,000 in civil penalties against Arthur Hicks Jr. for failing to meet clean-up deadlines at the abandoned former American Lawnmower factory at 705 E. 18th St.

Hicks told the UBHA he did not have time to clean up the lawnmower factory because he is under a separate court order to clean up the former Car Doctors auto salvage yard at 1004 S. Burlington.

“It’s just like a damn communist country is what it’s getting to be like,” Hicks told the hearing authority.

He then told the hearing authority to kiss his “ass” and stormed out of the City Hall auditorium before the hearing authority actually took action against him.

The lawnmower factory was one of two Hicks-owned buildings on the UBHA agenda Tuesday.

I have not fully developed my thinking on this one, but this story struck me because yesterday I had been trying to identify what bothered me about protests that government is trampling on individual liberties. I certainly enjoy my individual liberties, so there has to be something else involved. I have tentatively decided it has to do with the feeling that for many, such protests aren’t so much for the freedom to pursue one’s self-interest with minimal government intrusion, but merely a plea to excuse mere selfishness with no regard for civic duty or one’s role in or impact upon the community. Mr. Hicks — as portrayed in this article anyway — was free to open and pursue his various business interests, and was apparently allowed to do so long enough to let his properties become run-down and a problem. His action or inaction with respect to his property has an impact on his neighbors and his community.

A person can and should rise and fall in life to a great deal based upon their own actions. But that is not the entire story. A lot of opportunities available to those here are not available to those in other places; Burkina Faso, say. And it doesn’t matter how hard they work or how clever they are. The opportunities, resources, and other conditions in their communities and countries simply are not the same. The protests of those complaining of overbearing government are frequently devoid of any acknowledgment of this fact, almost maintaining a fiction that these individuals act in isolation without standing on the shoulders of those who came before and in conjunction with those who stand next to them. We are in this together to a larger degree than some of these folks care to admit. That doesn’t mean we should squelch individual initiative in favor of some Borg-like collective. But our interconnectedness needs to be acknowledged. And civic duty is something that ought to be taken seriously.

(H/t Thomas for this link). There is a report on newgeography.com that lists Lafayette as #1 in the nation for its improvement in the “Best Cities for Jobs” rankings.

This year’s rising star is without doubt Lafayette, Indiana with an astounding – and surprising given its Midwestern location – 202-place charge up the rankings from 2008. Like three of the other top five rising stars Lafayette came from a slightly above average position in 2008 to a respectable position in the top 100. These are by no means this year’s best places but their economies are defying the pervasive decline in the national economy.

A visit to the Lafayette Commerce website succinctly tells the tale. “Greater Lafayette wrapped up 2008 with a strong showing.” For Lafayette 2008 was a good year with new capital investments of $600 million, new employment in life sciences industries associated with the Purdue Research Park, and a second new hospital on the way as Greater Lafayette expands its regional healthcare base.

Equally important, Lafayette, like many university and college towns, benefits from the stabilizing presence of Purdue University, the area’s largest employer, which also serves as a force creating new economic opportunities through research, development and access to an educated workforce.

The annual report from Lafayette Commerce concludes by focusing on two key elements of their success. “In Greater Lafayette, we’re choosing not to participate in the national recession by using this opportunity for workforce development and innovation. That’s not to say we have been immune to the troubles of the national economy, but on the whole our community is growing, it’s thriving and improving every day.”

Lafayette went from #287 in 2008 to #85 in 2009. I didn’t dig around too much in the site to see if this information was provided, but I wonder when the data is through. Recently Lafayette has had its share of economic bad news with Caterpillar and Wabash National, in particular, having tough times. But then, I suppose other areas of the country are taking their lumps as well. From recent news reports and my own experience working the local collection beat, I’m surprised to see Lafayette doing so well, comparatively, on the job front.

Just some randomness from my trip down to Indianapolis this morning. I took the kids down to drop them off at their grandma’s and then, on my way back, I grabbed a 6 mile run on the Monon Trail.

#Once again, the Monon is an excellent facility. People were out in full force, running, walking, biking, rollerblading, and just generally enjoying being outside. I hope Tippecanoe County’s trail system eventually grows into something comparable.

#The grifters and pan-handlers were also out in full force. I stopped a a gas station and was approached by a guy with a quick sort of patter that reminded me of about every guy who ever lied to me in court about why they didn’t have any money. When his quick talking got to the subject of money, I interrupted him by saying, “I’m not going to be helping you.” I thought of offering excuses, but then it occurred to me that I didn’t owe him an explanation.

#I have a serious love of Skyline Chili. After my run, I stopped and got a 3-way and a coney. About 1.5 hours later, I’m still happy about it.

#I have demented radio habits. Pretty much the entire way home, I listened to the American Family Radio Network to get my fill of right-wing conservative Christian crazy paranoia. A commercial urging parents to teach their kids to respect authority was followed by a talk show host distressed by a DHS report that suggests that right-wing militants might be characterized by a violent opposition to government authority. He suggested that the government ought to be less worried about political speech and more worried about Islamic speech.

Elbow deep in papers today. Litigation kills trees. Dead.