Charlie White’s handling of his voter registration, candidate eligibility case just gets stupider and stupider.

White won at the administrative level after the Indiana Recount Commission conducted a hearing. He then undertook to represent himself with unfortunate results. Today, the hits keep coming. Jim Shella reported that White did not appear for today’s hearing – the trial court has been asked to review the decision of the Recount Commission. A hearing was set for today. White apparently told Shella at one point that he planned to attend but thought the hearing was at 1 p.m. Now a spokesman for White is saying that White didn’t think his presence was required and that he didn’t plan to attend.

Back in June, I suggested that White was offering a choice that he’s fairly dishonest or fairly incompetent. Jury’s still out.

Judge Posner has some interesting and, I think, accurate thoughts on the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Briefly, he suggests that the movement was sparked by imitation of the “Arab Spring” movements facilitated by the advent of low cost organization tools provided by social media and fueled by economic anxiety arising out of the 2008 depression. He figures the police made a tactical mistake by busting heads; without that, the encampments would have died on the vine as winter set in and conditions deteriorated.

The grievances he identifies as income inequality, lack of jobs, and (perceived anyway) baleful influence of financiers. He concludes:

Railing against income inequality, job loss, and banking abuses is thus understandable, but it doesn’t do any good. The “Occupiers” are anarchic and disruptive, and the solid middle of American society, which rejects the Tea Party because of its goofy ideas, is likely to reject the Occupy movement because of its style, while broadly sympathetic to its antipathies. But if the movement attracts charismatic leaders amidst a stagnant or worsening economy, it may become a force in American politics.

I think I disagree with Judge Posner in the sense that OWS shifts the parameters of the “national conversation.” If you don’t have a left edge (even a disagreeable one) talking loudly about economic inequality, the centrist “common wisdom” will fall ever further to the right on such issues.

Just a little self-promotion here. I have a guest column running in today’s Fort Wayne Journal Gazette – sort of a “dispelling myths about the General Assembly” premise. Not exactly hard hitting, but it was fun to do.

The “new” Chrysler, which Richard Mourdock spent $2 million of Indiana’s money opposing, is adding 1,100 new jobs.

No real point to this post other than it’s an opportunity for me to reiterate how bad I think Mourdock’s decision to challenge the bankruptcy work out was.

Not trusting themselves to make responsible decisions about priorities concerning taxes and expenditures, the U.S. House of Representatives took a crack at a “balanced budget amendment” to the U.S. Constitution. And, one can’t be too critical of the self-assessment of some in Congress that they can’t be trusted with these priorities. I don’t know how many played the game Civilization, but there was a screen where you could devote the Civilization’s resources to science, luxuries, and taxes. As one went up, the other two would move. You could lock one in place at a certain rate so that the remaining balancing took place between the remaining two. Most of the House Republicans have taken a pledge to, in essence, play the game with the taxes locked somewhere between 10 and 20 percent (you have to pick between 10% increments).

Anyway, “balanced budget amendment” doesn’t really tell you anything. It’s one of those things that sounds good as a general proposition, but the devil is in the details. Here is the text of H.J. Res 2 which the House voted on:

`Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.

`Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.

`Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts.

`Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a rollcall vote.

`Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law.

`Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.

`Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.

`Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with the later of the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification or the first fiscal year beginning after December 31, 2016.’.

Not exactly as concise as, say, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” — and we still haven’t entirely ironed out what *that* means. Can you imagine how long we’ll be fighting over what constitutes an “outlay”? And yet 261 of your duly elected representatives voted for this hot screaming mess. As an addition to the Constitution.

They want an amendment to our Constitution that includes an incentive to go to and continue war as a budgetary tool. Rep. Donnelly crossed party lines to vote for that? The six Indiana Republican Congressmen also voted for it. Reps. Carson and Visclosky voted against.

One of the pervasive problems in America these days (yup, I’m doing one of *those* posts) is that we don’t trust each other.

Conservatives don’t trust that poor people are actually trying very hard. Liberals don’t trust that financiers are actually doing anything other than skimming off the top. Labor doesn’t trust that wage concessions are necessary to stay competitive – they think Management is just trying to up its take. Republicans don’t trust Democrats and vice versa. Young people don’t trust that working hard and playing by the rules is anything more than a formula for chumps. Old people don’t trust the young to be grateful for the opportunities they’re given. Insureds don’t trust insurance companies to act in good faith; insurance companies don’t trust doctors and patients to make reasonable choices. Public employees don’t trust that their pensions will be available when promised. The public doesn’t trust that public employees worked sufficiently hard for the pensions they were promised as compensation. Etc.

How do we fix this? I don’t know. Consistently reward good behavior and penalize bad behavior and do so publicly. Easier said than done, I suppose.

I am writing this in haste and without full information; which is rarely a recipe for success. But, I’m ticked, so I’m doing it anyway.

A bad storm with some tornado activity was coming our way right as school was scheduled to let out. The county weather sirens blew just before school let out. Our kids walk, but my wife comes to get them. So, she calls the school to ask what is going on. The school reports that they are being held until the weather passes. The tornado warning that caused the sirens is scheduled to end at 3:30 p.m. My wife sees kids running down the street at 3:20 p.m. and so she high tails it to the school.

At 3:25 p.m., the weather has not passed, the really bad stuff is coming, and the tornado warning is being extended until 4:15. Nevertheless, my kids have apparently been released to go home. They would have walked out into some really awful weather except for some heads up action by my daughter’s old kindergarten teacher who knew my kids and how they came and went from school. She grabbed them as they were headed out the door and told them to stay put. Because the weather was so bad, my wife headed back with the car. By that time, the sirens were going off, hail was coming down, and everyone had to take shelter in the bathroom. The kids were apparently terrified.

Bus riding kids were apparently sent out in buses into the teeth of the storm, only to have the buses recalled. Parents of those kids were in limbo, wondering whether their kids were safe.

What a cluster.

Update It gets better. Apparently the kids weren’t just allowed to go when the brunt of the storm was approaching; they were actively instructed to do so. Someone announced over the PA that the kids were to “Leave School Immediately.”

Update #2 The principal sent out a response that seemed a little heavy on the “mistakes were made” variety of the passive voice. In her defense, she was not present at school today. But, the letter failed to address what seems to me to be the central screw up of the whole thing. The tornado sirens went off. The tornado warning was on until 3:30. Looking at a weather map, it was clear at 3:10 that something was coming, but a little more slowly than anticipated. Releasing the kids at 3:20 was a Bad Idea. Not only that, they were told to “Leave School Immediately.” No mention of that in the principal’s explanation.

The plan was to have the students remain in the building using our safety protocols until the Tornado Warning expired at 3:30 pm.
. . .
While preparing to go home, there was an announcement made that indicated all should leave, and this created coordination difficulties with our dismissal procedures.
. . .
Students were dismissed and then there was an additional warning given by the National Weather Service at 3:36 pm.

I understand the CYA instinct; but this time line just completely dodges the central fact of the “leave immediately” announcement at 3:20. . . sending the kids out into the teeth of the storm on foot. I had calmed down because everybody got home safe and sound; but the response is getting me riled up again.

Everyone and their dog is reporting that the United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari to consider aspects of the health care form reform law. Scotusblog is consistently one of the best sources for information about the Supreme Court, so I recommend its entry here. The Court has set aside 5.5 hours for argument which is a record for modern court proceedings. Somewhat oddly, I believe, the court is picking for review various issues from more than one of the challenges.

Here, in summary, is what the Court’s orders on Monday did:

* Granted, the issue of “severability” of the insurance mandate from the other provisions of the law, if the mandate is nullified (the only question in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius [docket 11-393] and question 3 in Florida, et al., v. Health & Human Services Department [11-400]), cases consolidated for 90 minutes of oral argument.

* Granted, the constitutionality of the insurance mandate (question 1 in the government case, Health & Human Services Department v. Florida, et al.), two hours of oral argument.

* Parties directed to brief and argue whether the lawsuit brought by the states to the insurance mandate is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act (an added question in the government case, 11-398); one hour of oral argument. (That order appeared to be limited to reviewing whether that Act only bars states from challenging the mandate; the question of whether that Act bars private entities from challenging the mandate was raised in the Liberty University case, and the Court did not grant that petition.)

* Granted, the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion (question 1 in the Florida, et al., case, 11-400, one hour of oral argument.

I don’t have a lot to add at this point except that, if the Supreme Court overturns the health care reform law, it will likely be disastrous. I’m not saying I have a high level of confidence about the good the reform law will ultimately do. It’s a mish-mash of what was politically feasible at the time. If it’s discarded, we can be certain that there will be no substantial reform efforts for another generation. And we all know for a certainty that the current system is broken. That might not be quite true; maybe some are arguing that what we have now is good. But I don’t see how that argument can be made convincingly. Under the current system, our country pays more for healthcare and gets the same or less than just about anyone else in the industrialized world. Tales of bad faith denials are legion. Health care expense is an anvil around the necks of business, government, and individuals alike.

The other interesting suggestion I have heard is that opponents are making the individual mandate out to be more complicated than it is. Congress could have imposed a straight on tax to pay for health care. If you make more than $x, then you have to pay $y as a tax. Objecting to the individual mandate approach, whereby individuals are required to acquire insurance of some kind – even it it’s through a private insurer, seems like an objection that government isn’t involved enough in health care. Now, I suppose some would argue that the federal government couldn’t even impose a tax to pay for citizen health care; but, that seems very far outside the commerce clause jurisprudence of the last century, if not century and a half.

John Russell, writing for the Indianapolis Star, has an article on a high level meeting between Duke executives and Gov. Daniels, seeking the Governor’s help in dealing with General Electric and Bechtel on issues having to do with cost overruns in the construction of Duke’s new plant at Edwardsport.

I don’t know that this reveals much of anything other than the fact that Duke has much better access to the Governor than Duke’s consumer advocate critics do. But, that was already pretty clear. Duke and Edwardsport have been in the news lately because the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission is having hearings to determine whether Duke can pass those cost overruns to ratepayers or whether the company has to absorb the cost itself. I haven’t been paying much attention to the issue, but I suspect I should be. Snarky Indiana’s Twitter feed has been pretty educational on the subject, however.

Some days, you wake up and realize there is nothing you want for yourself; that getting up will do nothing more than prompt others to ask you to do stuff for them. Just staying in bed seems like a viable strategy. Or maybe that’s just me. Is that a sign of clinical depression?

No matter. Matt Taibbi’s latest analysis of the Occupy Wall Street movement appears to be that they’re doing the social protest equivalent of staying in bed. Just a bone-deep weariness of the culture in which we live.

What both sides missed is that OWS is tired of all of this. They don’t care what we think they’re about, or should be about. They just want something different.

We’re all born wanting the freedom to imagine a better and more beautiful future. But modern America has become a place so drearily confining and predictable that it chokes the life out of that built-in desire. Everything from our pop culture to our economy to our politics feels oppressive and unresponsive. We see 10 million commercials a day, and every day is the same life-killing chase for money, money and more money; the only thing that changes from minute to minute is that every tick of the clock brings with it another space-age vendor dreaming up some new way to try to sell you something or reach into your pocket. The relentless sameness of the two-party political system is beginning to feel like a Jacob’s Ladder nightmare with no end; we’re entering another turn on the four-year merry-go-round, and the thought of having to try to get excited about yet another minor quadrennial shift in the direction of one or the other pole of alienating corporate full-of-shitness is enough to make anyone want to smash his own hand flat with a hammer.

He concludes that, at some point, OWS will have to get specific and offer solutions to the problems but that, for now, it just needs to grow.

And if it wants to sleep on the streets for a while and not structure itself into a traditional campaign of grassroots organizing, it should. It doesn’t need to tell the world what it wants. It is succeeding, for now, just by being something different.

He also revisits his thought that the OWS movement was aiming its frustrations in the wrong direction – why hassle the police when they’re just blue collar guys trying to do their jobs? (In the immortal words of Herman Cain, “you want a job, don’t you?”) But, Taibbi is willing to cut them at least a little slack by comparing the response and police resources expended on OWS as compared to those spent policing Wall Street itself. You get a much sterner response for protesting in the wrong spot than you do ripping off millions in the Wall Street casino.

But, the police thing is an aside. Weariness of the system and a desire to check out reminds me, once again, of Nenslo’s “Hateword” from years ago, one of the Rants of the Subgenius:

“They,” the Conspiracy, want you to buy all their crap, work hard all day at a mindless slave-task to pay for more machines to play their indoctrination programs on, to fill your home with pseudo-collectables in a limited numbered edition of a goddamn zillion. YOU KNOW ALL THAT!! We’ve told you and told you all that and if you don’t believe it by now there’s NO HOPE FOR YOU AT ALL and you might as well climb back over the fence and roll in the mud with the rest of the slavish porkers, right?? So you say to yourself, “Okay, I know what the Conspiracy wants from me, I know how they work, and what they do, and I’m NOT BUYING IT!! By gabbs, I’m gonna NOT do what they tell me to! I’m THROWIN’ AWAY MY TEEVEE, smashing my porcelain thimble collection, frisbeeing my CDs off lover’s leap and joining the radical anti-government party to learn how to make bombs!! I’m shaving my head and burning my house down and the more they tell me not to the more I’ll LAUGH in their faces and echo the noble sentiments of whoever it was that said FREE AT LAST FREE AT LAST THANK BLOB ALMIGHTY I’M FREE AT LAST!!” Right?

Sucker.

You think they didn’t plan for that? You think they’ll be surprised, huddling around their long mahogany table, appalled that one tenth of one percent of the population has “caught on” and won’t go up the slaughterhouse ramp like good little lambies?? Har dee har har. Listen, they know they can’t dupe everyone with the same turd-brain programming system. They know there are going to be a few who are just sharp enough to shake themselves awake and look around to see that the green pastures and still waters they were lying down by are actually a clanking conveyor belt carrying them relentlessly toward The Whirling Blades. They had that worked out a long time ago! They LOVE it when the ones who see the horror of the conspiracy program “go public” with their ghastly revelations or join radical anarchist communes or otherwise render themselves ENTIRELY UNBELIEVABLE!! Who do you think INVENTED hippies, punk rock, anarchism, youth gangs, “grafitti art,” rock and roll, hallucinogenic drugs, the New Age Movement, Christianity, cult films, alternative what-have-you?? Sure, it was some lone radical disillusioned soul at first, for about six months, but by the time WE heard about it, it was already a pre-packaged Official Conspiracy Product!!

For my part, I suspect Hegel’s thesis, antithesis, synthesis thing is just chugging along and our task is just to continue surfing the resulting waves as best we can.