It’s looking like former House Speaker John Gregg and former state representative Dave Crooks are going to re-enter the Indiana political ring. Gregg is forming an exploratory committee for a run for Governor and Crooks is considering a run for the Eighth Congressional District.

Both of those guys are good people and good candidates. Indiana would be well-served by either of them. I’m biased because I got to watch both of them work up close when I was working for the General Assembly. Rep. Crooks was a member of the House Commerce Committee when I was staffing it, always seemed to be diligent in considering legislation, and was super nice to me when I had to talk to him about something. My personal interaction with John Gregg was much more limited, but he was just fun to listen to over the in-house speakers of floor activity we had playing in our offices.

I think both of them will be good campaigners. Dave is a radio personality, and John’s down-home style of humor has to play better than Jill Long Thompson’s “I have a PhD” approach.

But, it’s early days, so we’ll just have to watch and see.

Bill Engle, writing for the Palladium-Item, has an article on how candidates use social media, particularly in the local Richmond races. Chris Hardie, Democratic candidate for an at-large seat on the council, has a great deal of credibility on this subject. He has been a part of the Indiana social media landscape for years.

In another race, down in Bloomington, I think mayoral primary challenger John Hamilton is using social media effectively (even though my sympathies probably rest with incumbent Mark Kruzan who I got to know a bit when he was in the state legislature.) Hamilton has enlisted the aid of Thomas Cook who has been part of the state’s political social media scene for years. State senator Jim Banks is someone who, in my opinion, uses Twitter well.

Now, it may well be that my vision of “uses social media effectively” is just a synonym for “folks who hang out at my end of the social media ghetto.” But, with that caution in mind, I think social media like Facebook, Twitter, and blogs are most effective when you can see some of the candidate’s personality (or maybe just their staffers) shine through, warts and all. If all I see is, essentially, your campaign press releases coming out over Facebook, I’m going to start ignoring your social media presence.

Ryan Dvorak (sorry Ryan!) is an example of someone I think has transitioned from the former kind of presence to the latter. When he first got to the legislature, he had a blog where he offered some thoughts about what was going on day-to-day. That dried up after awhile — quite possibly because that sort of thing takes a lot of time, and maybe because it could be a political liability as your opponent picks through and lifts the stuff that can be cast in the least flattering light. Now that Rep. Dvorak is running for mayor, I’ve seen some Facebook activity, but nothing has jumped out as much more than safe press release quality stuff.

To be clear, I know nothing about winning elections. So, I’m sure there are qualified people who can advise candidates that interacting in a personal way over social media will ultimately cost you more votes than it will win; but, from my perspective, if you’re not going to communicate in a less packaged way, just stick to the traditional, one-to-many, media outlets like newspaper, radio, and television instead of the many-to-many outlets like Twitter, Facebook, and blogs.

Last night, I caught the documentary “Jesus Camp,” on Netflix. It follows several kids, before and after a charismatic summer camp up in North Dakota. We all indoctrinate our children to one extent or another with our own beliefs. We just do. It’s an inevitable consequence of how kids learn. So, that aspect didn’t bother me as much as maybe was intended.

What disturbed me the most, however, was watching kids being taught that they were born broken, whether through Original Sin or other sinfulness, and Jesus was the only thing that could fix them. Teaching kids that they’re broken and unworthy (throw in a threat of eternal torment for good measure) unless they believe in a particular way is infuriating to me.

I only mention this story from Benjamin Lanka in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette because it’s a topic near and dear to my heart: municipal collection efforts. Apparently in Fort Wayne an auditor has offered some criticism to the city for not having a consistent collections policy. They have a collection agency that charges them a 30% contingency rate – and the auditor is o.k. with that – but criticizes the city because there is no uniformity in when departments send outstanding accounts to the collection agency. Some try to collect on their own, others simply ship the account out after 30 days.

It’s a balancing act. Outstanding accounts tend to get less collectible as they age. But, some accounts are easy enough to collect with a simple letter or two; and don’t justify the expense of an outside collector. I’d say, generally, a 90 day policy is probably about what you’d want. In most cases, that amount of extra time won’t diminish your chances of collecting too severely; and, on the other side, those who are inclined to pay without more encouragement probably would have made arrangements in that time period.

At least Fort Wayne departments are pursuing collections. I think we’ve got Tippecanoe County pretty well squared away, but I’ve known of municipalities that just didn’t do much in the way of pursuing delinquent accounts at all. It’s usually not really a core function of whatever the department does, and the unpaid bills get overlooked. (And, never one to skip a shameless plug — if there is anyone out there who needs collection services in Tippecanoe County and the surrounding counties, you could do worse than the fine folks at Hoffman, Luhman & Masson, PC.)

At 4:30 a.m. on April 12, 1861, rebels from the southern states took up arms against our country, firing on the American soldiers defending Fort Sumter. Residents of nearby Charleston sat on balconies and saluted this act of treason with cocktails.

Despite long years of tap dancing and arm waving after the fact, it’s clear that these southerners took up arms against their country in defense of slavery. They were mad that their preferred candidates had lost an election to Abraham Lincoln and decided to try to overturn the results of that election by force of arms because they were afraid of its impact on their ability to own people and steal their labor.

The Chicago Tribune ran an editorial at the time (h/t Abdul) that read, in part:

By the act of a handful of ingrates and traitors, war is inaugurated in this heretofore happy and peaceful Republic! While we write, the bombardment of Sumter is going on; and the blood of the few gallant defenders of the glorious old flag which yet, we hope, floats over that fortress is being poured out for their fidelity to the Constitution as it is, and the Union as our fathers made it!

The people know the cause of the fratricidal strife. The party, which, in the interests of a barbarous institution, has governed the country for the last 40 years, was beaten in the November election. The verdict of the people which does not touch a single one of the rights of any man, guarantied by the fundamental law, forbids the extension of that barbarous institution into national territory as yet uncursed by its blighting presence. This is the cause of the rebellion which months of effort has ripened into the bloody strife this day commenced! This and nothing else — this determination of a meagre minority to rule a powerful majority — this deification of Human Slavery as the guiding principle and polar star of a free people — are the dragon’s teeth which, sown in a pestilent soil, have produced armed men.

Despite modern protestation out of the South that the Civil War was about something, anything, other than slavery; the southerners of the time were quite clear about their reasons. The articles of secession are candid about the desire to preserve slavery and the feeling that the Northern States were insufficiently vigorous in their enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act. (States Rights were not, it appears, so sacred when it was time to enforce that law.)

My purpose is not to berate the actions of people who lived 150 years ago. History is crowded to bursting with barbarity. And, for that matter, I’m sure our time will have plenty to answer for when future generations take a look back. But modern day Lost Cause apologists drive me crazy. It seems to me that our country is still wounded by slavery and the Civil War. And, while that wound is gradually scabbing over, it is still festering. I don’t think the wound can really heal until everyone in the country, including the south, recognizes: 1) that slavery was evil; 2) that the Civil War was prompted by a defense of that evil; 3) that the South was beaten; and 4) that it was a good thing the South lost because its reasons for taking up arms against the country were immoral.

Once those lessons have been internalized, I’ll happily concede that a lot of the people fighting for the South were probably decent people who thought they were doing the right thing. Until then, honoring the symbols of their cause and pretending that what they were doing was somehow noble is simply repugnant.

Morton Marcus has a column (h/t Buzzcut) pointing out that mayors can’t simply pass off potholes, and the damage caused thereby, as the fault of a bad weather.

I will not accept, however, the excuses of my mayor that this was a bad winter.

No. The problem is that politicians insist on ignoring our roles as citizens and thinking of us only as taxpayers. It is not the cold of winter that withholds funds from fixing the streets. It is the cold in the hearts of too many voters who deny our communal responsibilities.
We live or die because others are careful or reckless. The tragedy is a growing number of Americans, including many Hoosiers, believe we are or should be independent of each other.

The point that we are citizens, not merely taxpayers, is fundamental. I raise the same objection when we are thought of as consumers. And, I disagree with Buzzcut, the government is us. It’s a tool by which we accomplish things we cannot accomplish as individuals. We are not solely communal; that vision leads to horrors. But, similarly, the notion that we are nothing more than individuals, that there is no “we,” is a poison as well.

It’s a bit overwrought, but I tend to think of this quote from the Watchmen when I hear things blamed on forces beyond our control:

The cold, suffocating dark goes on forever and we are alone. Live our lives, lacking anything better to do. Devise reason later. Born from oblivion; bear children, hell-bound as ourselves, go into oblivion. There is nothing else. Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose. This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us.

Probably a little much for potholes, but it spoke to me when I was a younger man.

Bo Van Pelt and I grew up as a couple of a bunch of kids who generally got in the way of the adults around the pro shop at Forest Hills Country Club. He was about four years younger than me, so I was skeptical when he’d come in from a round reporting suspiciously good scores. Turns out, he wasn’t lying or cheating: he was just really, really good. Today, he sits at 8th place after 3 rounds at the Masters, and I’m delighted to occasionally win a closest-to-the-pin contest in a local scramble.

Bo is featured in a Florida Times-Union article on the Masters about his third round performance which was one of the best on the day. I liked this description:

While Watson has been billed as one of the up-and-coming American stars since he won his first Tour event last summer and his second in January, Van Pelt has been a poster boy for the working-class PGA Tour player. The 36-year-old Indiana native, who went to Oklahoma State, has won once on the Tour, the 2009 U.S. Bank Championship.

But Van Pelt has finished between 30th and 79th on the FedEx Cup points list since the system was established in 2007 and has maintained his Tour exemption every year since 2004.

He has been showing flashes of good play in difficult tournaments. Van Pelt tied for fourth last year at The Players Championship, finished solo fifth the week before that at the Quail Hollow Championship, tied for third at Hilton Head, tied for third at the Memorial and made the cut at the U.S. Open, British Open and PGA.

Even if he hasn’t won a lot of tournaments, he has been pretty consistent and in the hunt a number of times, and generally been an excellent golfer even as some of his peers have had flashes in the pan.

Hoping for another good showing today. I’m not holding my breath, but seeing Bo with the green jacket on would be surreal and very cool.

The Palladium-Item looks to be starting a series on the environmental contamination at Springwood Lake near the industrial corridor on Richmond’s northwest side.

[T]he once pristine, spring-fed body of water has been fouled by decades of industrial runoff and spills. The water is relatively clean, but tests on the sediment beneath have revealed the ugly truth of its past as a catch basin for the city’s industrial northwest side.

When it comes to pollution, I have to keep returning to the notion that pollution is a form of externalizing the costs of production. When externalized, that portion of the cost of production isn’t reflected in the price, meaning that the market is not sending the correct signals. In this case, the future generations in the area – the ones who have to clean up the area, suffer from the health problems, and/or live with the mess – are subsidizing the consumption of the products made at that time and place.

I don’t know, and the article doesn’t say, but I have to think that the Alcoa plant in the area is one source of the contaminants. And that makes me a beneficiary of those subsidies. Dad made a good living at that plant, allowing him to support our family in a stable fashion. Mom was at home after school, we had good health benefits. He was able to spare the time to coach our sports teams, etc. etc.

So, thanks for the help neighbors of Springwood!

I don’t care much about how much Bristol Palin, in particular, gets paid; but recent reports that she got paid something like $260,000 advocating for prevention of teen pregnancy serve to illustrate why it’s tough to be complacent about standard arguments about why the rich shouldn’t be taxed so much.

The standard argument is that rich folks got that way through hard work and poor folks are poor because they’re lazy. Bristol’s case illustrates the fact that, if you’re well connected, you don’t have to work all that hard or even be a logical choice for the job to get paid well. I have no idea how the numbers break down statistically, but it’s hard not to suspect that money is not generally rewarding the most valuable contributors. As the song says:

Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows that the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
That’s how it goes
Everybody knows

Along similar lines, there was the story out of Wisconsin yesterday (h/t Indiana Law Blog), where an influential lobbyist’s son who, himself, had no particular distinction got a government job — despite the state’s loudly bemoaned financial problems — initially paying $61,000 and quickly followed by a promotion paying $81,000/year. He beat out a couple of applicants with a great deal of distinction but, apparently, no influential lineage.

It’s just not uncommon to see people prospering because of their parents and their connections. (Lest I be accused of liberal bias, we can throw in Rahm Emmanuel’s big payday after the Clinton years based primarily on Rahm’s fat rolodex.) Maybe it’s the same as it ever was. Maybe perception drowns out reality. But, when times are tough, it’s really tempting to start looking around for an aristocracy to blame.

Butler, and the Hoosiers/Milan story it echoes, is a great story. The Bulldogs are returning to the NCAA championship game. This year, instead of Duke, they’ll be competing against Connecticut.

One of the things that makes Butler such a great story is that it’s easily converted into a morality tale. Who knows what the actual reality is, but from the outside, Butler looks like everything we like — the humble underdog that gets to the top through pluck and hard work, overcoming more talented (but, because they lost, presumably less virtuous) opponents. It helps, this year, that the other side of the bracket gives us relatively cartoonish villains. It’s not too hard to imagine Kentucky’s Calipari or UConn’s Calhoun telling one of their blue chip bully boys to “sweep the leg, Johnny.”

It’s also a nice touch that Butler is returning after losing last year — gives it a nice “Rocky” flavor to it (as well as being reminiscent of the original Milan story). Maybe they’ll give us a satisfying ending to the story by winning it all on Monday.

We generally want to believe that hard work is a more important ingredient for success than money, talent, or luck.