The first meeting of the The Health Finance Committee is scheduled for today at 1:00 p.m. Tentative agenda items include:
1) Malpractice costs
2) Infertility issues
3) Moratorium/Certificate of Need
4) Enactment of legislation affecting the Department of Health
5) FSSA outside audit

The second meeting of the Legislative Council is scheduled for July 6, 2005 at 10:30 A.M. The agenda includes, “presentation of the county property tax reassessment project.”

The Environmental Quality Service Council is scheduled to meet at 9:30 a.m. on July 19, 2005. I didn’t see any agenda items online.

This is an annual ritual. Every year, there are complaints about how confusing and ineffective the fireworks law is in Indiana. Every year, nothing is done about it. I personally don’t have a strong feeling about which fireworks should be legal. I launched bottle rockets from the seat of a moving 10-speed and lived to tell the tale, but I certainly wouldn’t recommend such behavior. But the law should be clear. And our law, is crap.

The Indianapolis Star has commented on this before, and so have I. The Indianapolis Star has an article today entitled Fireworks law called confusing. According to the article:

Igniting fireworks is banned in Indiana with the exception of sparklers, noisemakers and a few other varieties. But illegal fireworks, such as bottle rockets and firecrackers, can be sold to people who promise to take them out of the state. Buyers also can agree to set them off in one of the state’s 25 designated areas run by firefighters.

[State Fire Marshal] Johnson said few people keep those promises. And police can’t stop “thousands of simultaneous crimes occurring in every corner of the community, every corner of the state,” he said.

Under the provisions of the law, I’m not even sure that local police have jurisdiction to enforce the law. I believe it was written to give the state fire marshal — and only the fire marshal — authority to enforce that particular law.

The law is here. It reads like a pretzel. That’s not an accident. As I said before,

In Indiana, where our legislation tends to be clearly written –even if you disagree with the policies,– a law doesn’t get this obfuscatory by accident. There was an intent to have this law be full of sound and fury, but signify nothing.

So, the Indy Star is being overly kind when it calls the law “flawed.” The structure of our fireworks law is an abomination.

An article from the South Bend Tribune entitled SouthBendTribune.com: Central time clear favorite suggests that those individuals attending a time zone forum in South Bend strongly favored Central Time. This contrasted with a poll taken by the Tribune which showed opinion about evenly divided. My guess is that this is going to be similar to the gun control debate and other primarily emotional issues — one side will be strongly committed to their position and will vote on that basis. The other side will be less passionate and won’t cast votes based on that issue alone. My guess is that central-timers and anti-DST advocates will be more likely to base their vote on the time issue than will eastern timers and pro-DST advocates. Just my guess. It also bears mentioning that this forum was not held by the U.S. Dept. of Transportation which has jurisdiction over the issue. The Daniels administration has said it expects the USDOT to conduct hearings. As best I can tell, the USDOT has been absolutely silent.

A couple of stories in conjunction just struck me a little. The first is an editorial in the Lafayette Journal & Courier. There was recently a forum on child abuse and neglect. According to the editorial:

Of particular concern, according to Marilyn Redmon, director of the Tippecanoe County Child Care Inc., is a lack of nurturing child-care programs for infants and toddlers. While there are some programs locally that fit the description, they fall far short of meeting the need. For example, 320 children are waiting on a list for services offered through the federally funded Early Head Start Program.

The other was a story in the Indianapolis Star about Mayor Peterson’s proposed cost cutting in Indianapolis entitled Earlier Pool closings prompt GOP criticism:

As part of Mayor Bart Peterson’s plan to trim $28 million from the city budget, Indianapolis pools will close two to three weeks early this summer. . . Peterson has said the cuts announced Wednesday could have been avoided if the Republican-controlled legislature had passed his government consolidation plan, known as Indianapolis Works. With that plan shelved by lawmakers, though, Republicans said the reduction plan was crafted to draw the most ire.

It’s a complete apples & oranges comparison, but the availability of city pools strikes me as quite a luxury when basic child care is so inadequate. What we really need, in my ever so humble opinion, are more jobs that pay enough so that one person’s income is enough to support the family. Seems to me that if two parents are working because wages are low and, as a result, we have to subsidize day care, then what we are doing –in effect– is subsidizing the employer paying low wages, and we’re doing it at the expense of our children’s upbringing. Because, by and large, I think a kid going home to a family member every day is going to be better off than one going to daycare.

How to get wages back up? Got me. Seems like unions and child labor laws and the like got us out of a similar situation back in the early 1900s, in the days of Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle.” Whether that’s part of the answer today, I couldn’t say for sure. But how do you like that? I got from pool closings to modifying NAFTA in 3 easy steps.

A pale shadow of the leaps in Otter’s speech to the Greek Council in Animal House:

Ladies and gentlemen, I’ll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules or took a few liberties with our female guests. We did. [Winks at Dean Wormer]. But you can’t hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few sick, perverted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn’t we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn’t this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg, isn’t this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do what you want to us, but we’re not going to sit here and listen to you bad-mouth the United States of America!

I just came across
this story from the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette from last Sunday’s paper. Apparently Gov. Daniels cracked some jokes about some recently passed legislation that ruffled up some of the legislators. The comments:

“This will shock you,” Daniels starts out. “But not every item the
General Assembly grapples with rises to quite the level of the Civil
Rights Act of ’65 or the original Reagan tax cuts.”

Daniels goes on to talk about three Senate bills – all written by his Republican colleagues – which he describes in this way:

Senate Bill 569 – “which requires the state to distribute information telling adults to tell kids to stop playing ball during thunderstorms.”

Senate Bill 382 – “which will send every bartender in the state for classes on I’m not sure what. How to spot a drunk, or that the legal drinking age is still 21. Or something.”

Senate Bill 140 – “which clarifies the rules around charity duck (rubber, not feathered) racing. Don’t ask.”

He notes that none of these bills was part of his agenda but not so offensive that he felt compelled to veto them. He clearly was, however, compelled to make fun of them.

“If you’re prone to overindulge and get tipsy at duck races held outdoors during lightning storms, one of these landmark bills may work to your advantage,” Daniels quips in his note, which is e-mailed to thousands of Hoosiers and placed on his campaign Web site.

The gratuitous references to Reagan’s tax cuts and his apparent confusion about the Civil Rights Act of ’64 or Voting Rights Act of ’65 aside, I find his comments mildly amusing. And, he’s right. The legislature often considers, and sometimes passes, pretty trivial legislation. (The worst one I was involved in was hair braider licensure which fortunately never saw the light of day.)

Senators Miller, Wyss, and Paul found the comments a bit disrespectful and inappropriate, and pointed out the more serious side to those particular bills.

Bilerico has requested some help getting the word out on a Human Rights Ordinance being considered in Indy. The above linked page has information on the ordinance. As it’s confined to Indy and I’m a little iffy on the concept of human rights ordinances generally, I guess I won’t add my feeble endorsement. But, I will say that, if you’re going to have a human rights ordinance designed to protect minorities, then including sexual orientation and gender identity protection makes sense.

Michele McNeil has an article for the Indy Star entitled Playing by new rules which recaps some of the laws going into effect on Friday, including:

Speed limit going up to 70 mph on interstates;

Online renewal of driver’s licenses will not be permitted. (Which, because of another bill will make voting just a little bit more difficult);

No more open containers of alcoholic beverages in vehicles. Currently they are allowed if the driver’s BAC is below 0.04;

Booster seats are required for kids until they are 8 years old;

Cold medicines containing ephedrine and pseudoephedrine will have to be sold from behind the counter; and

Doctors performing an abortion procedure will have to tell their patients they can hear the fetus’s heartbeat and view an ultrasound;

The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette has an editorial entitled “East beats Central” expounding on the virtues of Eastern Daylight Time versus Central Daylight Time. I guess if I were in Fort Wayne, I’d agree. They report Daniels’ assertion that the USDOT will announce public hearings soon. I’ll believe it when I see it. The USDOT may well allow hearings, but Daniels petition seemed plainly deficient in light of the USDOT’s requirements. If one of our boards of county commissioners had submitted the same petition, it would’ve been rejected out of hand.

Entries on Daniels petition here, here, and here.

Sheila Suess Kennedy has a column in the Indy Star entitled Playing by rules of law and order. She likens Speaker of the House, Brian Bosma and U.S. Representative for Indiana’s 8th District, John Hostettler to a couple of 3 year olds throwing tantrums when they don’t get their way. Their way, in this case, is the ability to use state and federal government for religious proselytization. Rep. Bosma supports the use of sectarian prayer as part of official House business while Rep. Hostettler refuses to condemn what appears to be a culture at the Air Force Academy hostile to people who aren’t born again Christians. Both deliberately miss the point about the role of the government in matters of religion and accuse their detractors as being “hostile to people of faith.”

More important, says Kennedy, is Hostettler’s attempt to defund enforcement of a court order involving the 10 Commandments.

To their credit, Gibson County officials have disavowed any intention to defy the court order. The attorney who defended the placement of the monument in court was quoted as saying, “We’re law-abiding people. Whether we like the ruling or not is irrelevant.”

That, of course, is the point. The rule of law becomes meaningless if we only have to obey laws and court decisions we like. Similarly, separation of powers — one of the fundamental elements of the American government structure — becomes meaningless if one branch can effectively control either of the others. (If the Democrats were to win control of Congress in 2006, would Hostettler agree that they could then “de-fund” the Bush administration, to keep it in line? Not likely!)

Think back to your days in Little League or sandlot baseball or whatever team game you played. What if the umpire called an out, but the player refused to abide by the call and insisted on running the bases? How long would the game have continued? We all know that every call an umpire makes isn’t correct; people can and do argue–often heatedly — with umpires and their decisions. But without an umpire, without someone whose job it is to call them as he sees them, without someone who has final authority to make the call, there can be no game at all.

The lawyer from Gibson County understands that; John Hostettler clearly doesn’t.

Which brings me to the point of this longish rehashing of matters I’ve already covered at length in this space. The umpire analogy reminds me of my Civil Procedure professor telling the class about judges. He said judges were like umpires and proceeded to recount a story of 3 umpires, a young one, a middle-aged one, and an old one. The young umpire said about calling pitches, “I calls ’em as I sees ’em.” The middle-aged one snorted scornfully, and said, “Hah. I callse ’em as they is. The old one just shook his head, and said, “Boys. They ain’t nuthin’ ’til I call ’em.”

WTHR has a story entitled Hostettler not backing down from his words.

From the story:

Washington D.C., June 23 – “Democrats can’t help themselves when it
comes to demonizing and denigrating Christians.” John Hostettler
retracted those words on the House floor, but he nonetheless believes
they are true.
. . .
Hostettler says procedural threats forced him to strike his words on the House floor, but won’t silence him elsewhere. “I’ll continue to voice my concerns about this bigoted approach to Christians and especially evangelical Christians until folks on their side decide to drop it.”

Not only is he nuts. He’s spineless. If he honestly believes Democrats simply can’t help themselves from demonizing Christians, he should’ve stuck by his guns. (Well, figuratively. I’m not sure the conditions of Hostettler’s probation allow him to possess firearms.)

See my previous entry for details. And see Taking Down Words for more about the procedure that turned Hostettler yellow.

Update: Per the suggestion at Taking Down Words, I went to the Congressional record for the transcript of Rep. Hostettler backing down on the House of Representatives. Some of the discussion follows:

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the last sentence I spoke.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I think the House needs to understand why I objected to the language of the gentleman.

As I understand it, the language that the gentleman is saying he will withdraw is the following: “Like moth to a flame, Democrats can’t help themselves when it comes to denigrating and demonizing Christians.”

What I would have asked the gentleman, since he referred earlier in his remarks to me and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel), I would have asked him if he really believed that the gentleman from New York’s (Mr. Israel) efforts to attach similar language in the Committee on Armed Services, the language that the gentleman referred to earlier in his discussion, whether he really thought that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel) was engaging in an anti-Christian act. I would have asked him whether he really thought that the language that I was trying to offer to protect people of all religions at the Air Force Academy, whether he really thought I was being anti-Christian. I would have asked him if he thought that the chaplain at the Air Force Academy who laid her career on the line in order to protect the religious freedom of those cadets who she felt were being intimidated, whether her actions were anti-Christian.

[Time: 16:30]

I would have asked whether he thinks that the kind of conduct which the superintendent of the Academy has already admitted occurred, which among other things had one cadet calling another a “filthy Jew,” or when they had cadets who did not subscribe to a specific kind of Christianity being told that they were going to, “burn in hell,” I would have asked him whether or not the Chaplain’s objection to that kind of conduct was antiChristian?

I would have suggested that when Mr. Whitaker, the official spokesman for the Academy indicated that he thought the problem at the Academy was one of “insensitivity and ignorance,” I would have asked whether or not, unfortunately, we did not often see those same qualities displayed elsewhere, including on the floor of this House?

And I would have suggested that I think his outburst, and the specific language he used, is perhaps a perfect example of why we need to pass the language in my amendment, which states, “coercive and abusive religious proselytizing at the United States Air Force Academy by officers assigned to duty at the Academy and others in the chain of command at the Academy, as has been reported, is inconsistent with the professionalism and standards required of those who serve at the Academy.

And I would add, also, of those who serve in this House and speak on this floor. So those are the questions I would have asked. If the gentleman is withdrawing those words, fine, I think it is constructive that he do so.

But, before I do that, I would, under my reservation, yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, the words that we heard, as unfortunate and as hurtful as they were, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) says, testimony for the passage of our amendment.

I have never heard it suggested that by somehow saying that with a personal expression of religious observance and freedom, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) wrote in his amendment, as I included in my amendment, could somehow be characterized in the way it just was.

And, Mr. Chairman, I will just state for the record, with respect to the Air Force Academy, by one estimate, of the 117 Academy cadets, staff members and faculty members who complained about religious intimidation and proselytizing, eight happened to be Jewish, one happens to be atheist, 10 happen to be Catholic, and all of the rest happen to be Protestants.

So this is not being for or against any one faith, I would say to the gentleman. This is about respect for all faiths. And that is why we offer this amendment, and that is why we believe now more than ever that it is critical that it be passed, and that the American people know that we embrace religious viewpoints in our military, but we also want respect for the spiritual values of all people.

Mr. OBEY. Continuing my reservation, Mr. Chairman. I would simply say that perhaps the speech of my good friend from Florida (Mr. Young) urging that we stop talking on this amendment and get to the vote, perhaps his speech came 5 minutes too late. It is too bad, not too late, because if we had voted before the last speaker, the House would not have seen this unfortunate event present itself.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that I think perhaps the best thing to do in the interests of restoring a decent amount of civility and comity to the House this afternoon is for the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) as he has suggested, to withdraw his words and for us to get onto a vote and pass this amendment to make quite clear that every Member of this House, save perhaps a few, recognize that we have an obligation to each and every cadet at the Air Force Academy, to see that they can practice their religion without fear of ridicule, without fear of condemnation, without fear of intimidation by anyone else, be they Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, or any other religion that anyone of us can think of.

This language in the committee bill, the language which we are restoring by my amendment, is an effort to protect all religions, all religions. I would ask for an aye vote when the amendment comes.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana?

There was no objection.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the words designated by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) are withdrawn.

There was no objection.