Just have to add my love for Lazy Muncie, a brilliant rip-off of the Saturday Night Live “Lazy Sunday” rap (and the “West Coast” response)  with a refreshing Midwest sensibility — bragging about, say, Bob Evans instead of some New York cupcake shop I’ve never heard about. The coup de grace: Garfield creator Jim Davis flashing gang signs.

Rabbi John Adland’s e-mail assisted at least in some part by blogospheric efforts spearheaded by The Daily Pulse, resulted in an apology from Speaker Bosma for his comments to the Jewish Community Relations Council.

The WISH-TV article on the apology doesn’t really describe the original comments in any detail. Rabbi Adland described the exchange as follows:

Speaker Bosma, defending the prayer issue [Christian prayer as part of official business of the Indiana House of Representatives], asked, “How many Jews are there in Indiana? About 2%? There are at least 80% Christians in Indiana.” The implication of this statement was
that our minority community doesn’t and shouldn’t have any say or any voice. It is about the majority and what the majority wants.

The WISH-TV article describes Speaker Bosma’s apology this way:

It all stems from a discussion
regarding prayer in the Indiana House where it was pointed out that two percent of the population is Jewish and 80 percent is Christian.

“I asked the group what percentage of the population in Indiana for demographic purposes was of Jewish tradition and faith and it was them who provided me with the two percent,” said Bosma.

Rabbi Adland saw that as disregard for minority rights and said as much in an email sent to his congregation, which is now posted on several blogs.

On
Monday afternoon Bosma held a second meeting with the rabbi and other Jewish leaders “and I gave a heartfelt apology if the implication of my words were offensive to him,” said Bosma.

Of course, this isn’t really an apology by Speaker Bosma for having made the statement or for believing in what the statement implies. He has only apologized for the fact that the Rabbi was offended by those things. From the record available to us, it does not appear at all certain that Speaker Bosma believes the Constitution has a role to play in protecting the minority from the passions and preferences of the majority.

(Hat tip to Taking Down Words for the WISH-TV story.)

William Larsen was kind enough to post a comment to the blog earlier in which noted some of the beliefs upon which he is campaigning. He said:

I am for smaller government, restoring our personal freedoms, actually creating an Energy policy that works, working on identity theft, pension reform, tax reform, not only balancing the general budget, but begin paying down the national debt, restoring our country borders and repealing the Social Security Act pertaining to old age benefits.

His blog is here. If you’re a Republican in the 3rd District but don’t like  the thought of another term for Rep. Souder, you have alternatives.

Having said that, I have come to the conclusion that the only way to federal government spending is to have gridlock in the federal
government. Even if Mr. Larsen is a deficit hawk, I do not think he will be able to be very effective in controlling the drunken spending that seems to be the inevitable consequence of one party rule. But certainly every little bit helps.

The Journal Courier has a very loving editorial for Senator Meeks and his curmudgeonly addiction to honesty.  He called the pork in the Toll Road bill “pork.” He said that those who support the fireworks legalization bill only for the fees were only interested in the money.

I’m from outside his region, so I don’t know a great deal about him. But, from a recent entry at Indiana Parley and a related press release from the Drug Policy Alliance, I gather that he is not a small government conservative.

Souder was apparently incensed that representatives of the Marijuana Policy Project were involved in a discussion on drug policy at a Conservative Political Action Committee conference. I don’t know what the best policy is, but small government conservatives should at least acknowledge that the War on (Some) Drugs is imperfect — in part because it requires a lot of government money (taxes), a large government bureaucracy, and significant government infringements on our civil liberties– and that, among America’s list of problems, marijuana use is way at the bottom. On top of that, it’s not entirely clear that the War on (Some) Drugs is particularly effective for all its expense and infringement on our liberties.

But, Mr. Souder is apparently not willing to entertain discussion of a smaller government solution to the problem, such as it is or a reordering of our priorities to use tax dollars where they can do more good. 

Students of the Drug War might recall that Mr. Souder is the author of a provision that prohibits individuals with a prior conviction of smoking marijuana from receiving financial aid for college.  Under Mr. Souder’s law, Governor Daniels wouldn’t have been eligible for financial aid after his marijuana bust, and former Gov. Kernan wouldn’t have been eligible had he been caught when he was smoking marijuana. Small government conservatives should at least consider the possibility that, if government resources have to be used, it might make more sense to spend more money educating our population, even if they have a marijuana-related conviction, and less money messing with some of the less harmful drugs.

Jennifer Whitson, writing for the Evansville Courier Press, has an article entitled “Now it’s crunch time for state lawmakers.” According to House and Senate Rules, legislators have to get their bills out of committee within the next week. Otherwise the bills are dead. (Well, mostly dead, there are usually ways of resurrecting things if you have enough clout.)  The week after next is reserved for getting committee-passed bills through second and third reading. And the week after that is for conference committees where the House and Senate try to hash out a final form for bills that passed the respective chambers with differences.

Ms. Whitson’s article notes that, still under consideration, are:

• The Toll Road lease bill (which gives the Governor authority to close similar deals without consulting with the legislature).
• Two government consolidation bills (one is specific to Evansville and Vanderbugh county, the other provides a more general route for consolidation of overlapping units of government.) Some sort of IndyWorks provision might be tacked into one or the other.
• An omnibus property tax bill.

 

The AP has an article published in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette on Gov. Daniels trip to Crown Point to field questions on the proposed Toll Road sale.  According to the article:

“Our country was based on the premise of no taxation without
representation, but I see the leasing of the Toll Road just like that,”
Crown Point resident Helen Batusic told the governor.

Well, no. Not at all. Sure, you’ll be paying a tax because of this. If you’re driving the Toll Road frequently, you’ll be paying a lot of taxes, more and more as the 75 years progresses. But that will not be without representation — at least not for those of us alive and eligible to vote today. Our representatives in the 2006 General Assembly will have voted to lock in that 75 year tax.  Maybe the coming generations that will also have to pay the tax can complain about taxation without representation. But not us. We can only complain about the former, not the latter. Good representation? Well, that’s an entirely separate question.

I was just clued-in to a post at The Daily Pulse on a meeting between representatives of  the Indianapolis Jewish Community Relations Council and House Speaker Brian Bosma. According to an account by one of the Rabbis who took part in the meeting, Speaker Bosma had a pretty callous attitude toward how Jewish citizens’ rights might be affected by sectarian Christian prayer as part of the official business of the Indiana House of Representatives.

The e-mail describes the meeting as follows:

Last Tuesday, the Indianapolis JCRC’s Jewish Lobby Day was held. Around 40 Jews from around the State of Indiana came to Indianapolis to lobby our state senators and representatives on a number of issues.

The day ended with a private meeting with Speaker of the House Bosma meeting our group in the beautiful House chambers. We asked questions about full day kindergarten, about the clinics, and a young member of the delegation asked about providing sexuality education in public schools that is more than abstinence based. He responded to everything we asked. Sometimes we liked what he said and sometimes we didn’t. Speaker Bosma wondered why we hadn’t discussed the controversy surrounding the issue of prayer in House chambers. He told us his version of what happened and what he believes, and a passionate exchange took place. The end of this exchange left us, the Jewish delegation, in shock. Speaker Bosma, defending the prayer issue, asked, “How many Jews are there in Indiana? About 2%? There are at least 80% Christians in Indiana.” The implication of this statement was that our minority community doesn’t and shouldn’t have any say or any voice. It is about the majority and what the majority wants. The jaws of the delegation dropped to the floor. We were speechless. Everything we believed about this country had just been trampled. Gone was the belief of the constitutional protection of minorities. Gone was not feeling marginalized. Gone was the belief we were not strangers in this country. I am sure that Speaker Bosma is a fine man, but in that moment, for the first time in my life as a citizen of this country, I was scared. It is what I now call the 2% solution (and Jews are much less than 2% of this state) that if you are only 2% don’t even bother to speak up as the “Tyranny of the majority” will prevail.

I am sorry to bring such a depressing message as we prepare for Shabbat, but it needs to be said and addressed. I have been reminded about why we need to be vigilant. So I come to you on this Friday, February 17, 2006, to ask you to use this Shabbat to think about joining me and others at times to raise our voices. We might not agree on all the issues, but we agree that as Jewish residents of this State we should have a voice. 2% or less shouldn’t matter. It is not about the majority. It is about us.

As you light your Shabbat candles this evening, light one for this great nation that has allowed us to grow and prosper and worship as Jews without restrictions. Light the other as beacon to our elected officials who if they follow the light will understand that leadership comes with responsibility to all, to be inclusive of all, and to help those who need the most help.

Shabbat Shalom

As a lawyer, Speaker Bosma should understand that one of the most important roles of the U.S. Constitution (or any Constitution, really) is to protect the rights of minorities from the passions and preferences of the majority. Perhaps the e-mail does not provide the full context of Speaker Bosma’s statement. But, it scarcely matters. If Speaker Bosma tried to defend government speech that endorses a particular religion by citing majority opinion, he apparently does not appreciate that, far from being a defense, disproportionate power is precisely the reason that government speech should not be used to advance the dominant religion.  

Niki Kelly has an article in the Fort Wayne Journal Courier entitled Toll Road lease foes say greed fuels plan. A Senate appropriations committee hearing had about 30 opponents crammed into the committee room. Fort Wayne’s Jim Kelsey:

“Selling prime productive assets is a sure sign of desperation and mismanagement. Any asset may be sold for quick money,” he said. “That is not the problem. The problem is balancing budgets so that you don’t have to sell assets. This means prioritizing needs and raising taxes when necessary.”

A minor part of the article I really enjoyed was Ms. Kelly’s description of ‘Major Moves’ as “Daniels’ pet name for the program.” I dislike the trend in politics of using slogans as labels for legislation. When you use shorthand to describe a thing, you avoid having to actually discuss what that thing is. Often times this is a necessary evil given the need to speak succinctly to be understood. But with politics, the sloganing of legislation (not to mention the verbing of nouns) obscures the legislation even further than usual.

Back to the Toll Road. Opponents, such as Brenda Buster, sees the Toll Road sale in terms of basic Hoosier morality:

“Instant gratification is short-lived and full of regret,” said Brenda Buster of Morgan County.

She compared the plan to “pawning state assets like a junkie when they need fast cash.”

The Indy Star is reporting that the Martin County Council hasendorsed a plan to try to get all of southwestern Indiana to request a shift to Eastern Time.

The Martin County Council asked its attorney this week to draft a resolution calling for a united move by all southwestern Indiana counties for Eastern time.

Good luck with that.

Meanwhile, a story that follows up on a prior entry, Pulaski County has decided to go renegade if it doesn’t get what it wants from the Feds. It wants to have the USDOT reverse its decision to grant Pulaski County’s request to shift to Central Time. I guess this is a “be careful what you wish for, you might get it” situation.

The County Commissioners and County Council both voted unanimously Monday to declare “home rule” and stay on Eastern time if a federal agency does not grant an appeal to change the time-zone ruling made last month.

The meeting on the time-zone issue drew a crowd of local residents that filled a courthouse meeting room and spilled out into the hallway and down the stairs. Many people spoke against the U.S. Department of Transportation’s decision to shift the county to Central time beginning April 2, when daylight-saving time begins.

“I can count on this hand, the ones who want Central, and of those, three of them don’t even know why,” Pulaski County Commissioner Terry Young said.

Commissioner Young’s statement is at odds with Pulaski County’s petition to the USDOT. The petition said:

The question of which zone we should be in was talked about [at the public meeting]. Should we be in Eastern or Central Time Zone? Everyone present had the opportunity to give their thoughts, and they did. There were no citizens who were in favor of Eastern. All were in favor of leaving the tjme alone, by not having to change time during the year. But, if we have to choose one of the two, the choice would be Central Time. Some citizens called or talked personally to a Commissioner or the County Auditor to give their opinion. Their opinion was the same as those who were in attendance of the public meeting.  The public meeting came forward with the following considerations for making the choice of Central Time.

The most important consideration is the time of sunrise. A late sunrise will expose school children and morning commuters to undue hazards because of the extended darkness, the winter weather, poor road conditions, low visibility, drivers not being fully
 awake. These are very dangerous combinations. Comments were made that it is better for school children to get onto buses in daylight and off the buses after dark. They wait in the dark for a bus, but go directly to the house after being let off the bus.

Local business and industiy will benefit more by Central Time. Pulaski County is still a farming community, with some light and medium industiy. The farmer can still get to town in daylight after farming for a full day. Industry receives and ships more goods and services to and from the Chicago business hubs than to any of the Eastern hubs.

It sounds like there were more than a handful of Central Time supporters, and they had sound reasons for their opinions. With the denial of the petitions for central time of nearby counties, I understand Pulaski County’s unhappiness with being moved to Central Time when their neighbors were not. This whole process was screwed up from the start, and they ought to be resentful of the position they were put in by the Governor’s half-baked time zone scheme. But I do not understand Commissioner Young’s minimization of the sentiment for Central Time.