A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

Masson's Blog

Bradner: Berry Selection by Pence designed to block Mourdock

by 17 Comments

Interesting piece by Eric Bradner, stating that the selection of Tim Berry by Gov. Pence to run the state GOP is calculated to block any plans Richard Mourdock might have to run for state Auditor. Berry is currently the auditor and term limited from continuing in the position. By selecting Berry as head of the state party now, Pence gets to appoint someone to be auditor for the remainder of the term. In all likelihood, that person will then win the primary for the 2014 election. Richard Mourdock is finishing up his eighth year as treasurer and is also term limited.

Bradner suggests that Gov. Pence wants to keep Mourdock off the ticket because of his implosion during the 2012 senate race; after knocking off shoo-in Richard Lugar as a darling of the Tea Party, Mourdock made the thelogically plausible but politically suicidal assertion that children of rape were God’s will. In addition to making the GOP look bad, this had the effect of allowing Joe Donnelly to win a Senate seat that would have been secure, but for Treasurer Mourdock.

R.I.P. Jeffrey McManus

by 1 Comment

I just learned that Jeffrey McManus died. I never knew him in person, but I’d known him online for something like 14 years. He was part of the Well and then, later on, we were connected by Twitter and Facebook.

For me, he was a good example of the concept I’ve come to know as ambient intimacy. Even though he lived in California, I knew more about him and his family than a lot of the individuals I see in person on a regular basis. He was 46, had a wife and two kids, and seemed to be just far enough ahead of me on the “growing up” schedule that I was always taking notes when he was commenting on fatherhood and whatnot. And, of course, his Twitter harassment of Chuck Woolery always made me laugh.

I don’t know the details, but so far as I can see, this looks to have been a bolt from the blue situation. His Twitter stream looked regular yesterday, and the linked report says that he passed away in his sleep from unknown causes.

I feel so sorry for his wife, Carole, and their kids. They are a well loved and respected family, so they won’t lack for support; but I don’t know that anything will help much, at least not in the short term.

America: 237 Years Young Today

by 7 Comments

In honor of the nation’s 237th birthday:

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

R.I.P. Sammy Terry: Modern Pericles

by 7 Comments

O.k., bear with me here. Local late night scary movie host Sammy Terry has passed away. (Tidbit from the article I hadn’t known – George the spider was voiced by Cowboy Bob.) I pretty much only watched Sammy Terry when I was up later than I was supposed to be — sleep overs in late elementary school and early middle school mostly. Still, news of his passing gave me a great pang of nostalgia. (The passing reference to Cowboy Bob — who I watched a lot reinforced that nostalgia.)

Lafayette Journal & Courier columnist and editor Dave Bangert asked on Twitter, “Is there anything close to this local, pop culture bond for today’s kids?” My response was “The Internet has brought us many things, but I don’t think there is any doubt that it has eroded our sense of place.” He noted similar feelings with respect to local radio when MTV was on the rise.

This brought me back to a theme to which I like to return periodically. What did Golden Age Athens have that we don’t?

I find it interesting that great historical and cultural advances came out of population centers that we would consider too small to make much of a cultural impact today. Golden Age Athens had only a couple hundred thousand people, I think. So, I wonder what it was about those places, times, and people that led to a cultural flowering with resources we’d consider fairly limited today.

See also:

Occasionally I get to wondering about how our entertainment culture has changed over the years. I hear stories about the days when big musical names traveling to small venues in mid-sized towns around the state. You occasionally see defunct opera houses in the oddest places. And, going way back, great classical plays were produced in Athens with a population of about 100,000 — less than the population of Tippecanoe County.

I suppose the abundance and ease of movies, television, and recorded music has made us less likely to produce our own entertainment locally and less likely to go to a live venue to see this stuff. I confess that I don’t take advantage of even the opportunities that are still available to me. So, I don’t have room to complain. But, it seems like we’ve probably lost something valuable by not having local, live entertainment being as vital a part of the community. Certainly, it’s a mistake to think you need to have a city of millions to produce quality entertainment.

Granted, it’s tough to seriously identify Sammy Terry with a “cultural flowering” or even necessarily with “quality entertainment.” But there was something unique to place and time that was able to arise when television was relatively new and markets were local. It’s the explosion of growth that’s made possible when a niche is wide open. Eventually, the ecosystem matures, more marginal forms are crowded out, and the resources are monopolized by a few relatively efficient forms.

So, too, in Golden Age Athens, the human resources of the area were available to the community of Athens, not diverted elsewhere; and the economic and other resources of Athens were available to the individuals living there, not diverted elsewhere. Additionally, I’m starting to recognize that a lot of the Greek success had to do with the newness of writing – particularly alphabetic writing – and the new modes of thought it permitted. This was the, as yet, unexplored niche that led to explosive creativity and, frankly, picking of a lot of the low hanging fruit.

Born in the 70s, I see echoes in the video game industry (how is that for a segue?): game systems like the Commodore 64 and the Atari 2600 seemingly had vast oceans of game titles – with incredible variability in quality. Now, from my no-longer-a-gamer perspective, it seems that the industry is dominated by relatively few titles with more predictable quality. There are parallels in the dotcom boom days of the Internet – lots of energy and new things being tried, followed by a bust and rise of more stable giants. Sammy Terry was probably a reflection of a similar dynamic in the television industry.

But, I suppose I digress. My initial thought was whether it’s possible, or even desirable, to maintain that sense of place and take efforts to focus local resources and local talent on the benefit of the local population. (Local being a relative term, of course.) Or, is it simply the case, that now that easy world-wide communication (and, to a lesser extent physical travel) is readily available; focus on the locality is or will soon become an anachronism?

(Political) Fear (of Marriage Equality Vote) is the Mind Killer; the Little Death . . . etc.

by 4 Comments

Maureen Hayden, writing for CNHI, has a good column (h/t Indiana Law Blog) on HJR 6 – reflecting on what lawmakers will tell her in private versus what they feel they must say for public consumption.

Most people know and love someone who is gay. That number is only going to rise as more and more gay people feel comfortable enough to be open about who they are. I think there is a relatively small but hardcore group who very much fear and oppose recognition of gay people as normal people. That’s where the motor for such things as HJR 6 comes from. The text of that proposed Constitutional amendment again:

Only a marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.

Now, keep in mind, gay marriage is already against the law in Indiana. This constitutional amendment seeks to make it double illegal or something. (Actually, it’s pretty clear the motive is to make it tougher for future generations to make their own decision about marriage equality as the consensus continues to shift.) The current law reads:

IC 31-11-1-1
Same sex marriages prohibited
Sec. 1. (a) Only a female may marry a male. Only a male may marry a female.
(b) A marriage between persons of the same gender is void in Indiana even if the marriage is lawful in the place where it is solemnized.

So, it’s not entirely accurate to say that the new Constitutional Amendment does nothing other than cement the eroding consensus against marriage equality. In addition, the amendment throws in a can of passive-voiced worms with that line that “a legal status ‘substantially similar’ to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be recognized (by whom?)”

In any event, Ms. Hayden notes that, many of the lawmakers to whom she has spoken are not the hardcore opponents of normalization. Rather, they are individuals who know and love friends and family who are gay but fear the political backlash if they come out of the closet and vote their conscience.

To whom I say, the progress that your loved ones have made, particularly in the last 20 years, is due almost entirely to the bravery of those who stuck their necks out first. Because they did, more were willing to follow. And, as that happened, the backlash diminished. Because, it turns out, most people are willing to live and let live. The lawmakers who are secretly accepting of gay people but feel obliged to pretend otherwise in public should come out of the closet themselves.

And, in honor of a conversation I recently had with Michael Wallack, I’ll put up this old chestnut from Frank Herbert, the litany against fear, that seems apropos:

I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

Who’s a Journalist? For Shield Laws, the Answer Shouldn’t Matter

by 5 Comments

The Indiana Law Blog flagged a column by Margaret Sullivan posing the question of “who is a journalist?” Sullivan notes the blurring of lines between journalists, columnists, and bloggers. It used to be that freedom of the press was for someone wealthy enough to own a press. Now everyone owns a press. One reason it matters, according to Sullivan, who is and is not a journalist:

There is a strong legal component to this discussion: Who will be covered by a federal shield law that would give legal protection to journalists who have promised confidentiality to their sources, if it ever comes to pass? Will it cover only established news organizations or those who get paid for news gathering? Or does it cover everyone with a Facebook page?

I’m not a journalist. Sometimes, arguably, I report news. More often, my blog is the functional equivalent of an opinion column. In any event, I’m a citizen who likes to talk about the issues of the day. That’s my privilege and, frankly, I regard it as something of a duty as well. But, I’m not a great fan of media shield laws. I don’t think we should be making a distinction about the sorts of expression that is and isn’t protected based on one’s profession. A citizen afflicting the comfortable with the truth would, in a perfect world, be afforded some protection from the blowback regardless of whether he or she is getting paid for it. But I don’t see why the likes of Judith Miller should be afforded more protection than the rest of us.

Sullivan goes on to discuss the notion of professional respect afforded individuals doing their work in an established newspaper being different than that afforded, say, bloggers. I think that has less to do with the proper definition of “journalist,” and more to do with whether the people doling out the respect in question are credible arbiters of respectability.

R.I.P. Alta Vista

by 1 Comment

It’s almost like finding out that a mostly forgotten ex-girlfriend has a terminal disease. You wonder how someone who was, at least briefly, so central to your life disappeared so completely from your consciousness. And, you know you ought to feel at least a little bad, but instead, you feel more nostalgia than anything else — remembering the other people and places from that time.

AltaVista is going to be discontinued on July 8, 2013. AltaVista failed because it latched on to the “web portal” business model fad. This created an opening for Google that has allowed it to rise to the world dominating company it has become. The web portal model was a notion that one page should be what a web user opened up to all the time and used to get to everything else. E-mail, stocks, news, shopping, ads, and, if you could find it, maybe a search engine. When AltaVista offered its gummed up mess of a website instead of a simple, quick loading web page for searching; it became less usable. Google arrived on the scene at the same time, offered an extremely lean search page, and the rest is history. Seems like AltaVista later tried to offer a stripped down search site called “Raging,” but it didn’t catch on and by then it was too late.

So, sometimes honoring consumer preferences ends up being a better business practice than going along with the common wisdom of the business community at the time. Keeping in mind the general theme of this blog, lawmakers might keep that in mind when the business community is advocating for a policy that doesn’t seem to square with common sense or constituent preferences.

Tipsy on Same Sex Marriage

by 18 Comments

I refer you to Tipsy’s thoughts on the recent Supreme Court DOMA decision. He believes that marriage should remain as it’s traditionally been. I have come to a different conclusion. But, I think it’s important to read thoughts such as his because it’s far too easy for proponents of same sex marriage to dismiss opponents as necessarily ignorant and/or hateful. Some certainly are, but not all. And I think it’s important to understand perspectives of those of good will and great intelligence who arrive at different conclusions.

No Safety Net for Indiana Medicaid Expansion Negotiations

by 3 Comments

(Via the Indiana Law Blog) Dan Carden, writing for the Northwest Indiana Times reports that the Pence administration has not been making any contingency plans for the possibility that the federal government will not approve the “Healthy Indiana” plan as a Medicaid substitute.

Readers may recall that Medicaid expansion was a key part of the health care reform effort. The Affordable Care Act would provide subsidies to those making more than 133% of the poverty level but unable to afford health insurance. The expansion of Medicaid was designed to cover those not currently eligible for Medicaid but making less than 133% of the poverty level. The Supreme Court, while it upheld the Affordable Care Act, struck down that part of the Medicaid expansion that effectively made it mandatory for states to adopt. Instead, Medicaid expansion is up to the states to decide. The federal government will foot the entire cost of the expansion for the first few years and the lion’s share of the expansion (80% – 90%, I think) after that. Of course, Congress, like any governing body, can change its mind in the future.

There are about 400,000 Hoosiers in this ACA/Medicaid doughnut hole. Governor Pence, of course, has political and policy objections to health care reform. Instead of going with the federally funded Medicaid expansion for 400,000 Hoosiers, he wants to stick with the “Healthy Indiana” plan that covers more like 36,000 Hoosiers. According to the Carden article, the Pence administration is not working on a Medicaid expansion alternative in case the federal government says, “no.”

As for the 400,000 Hoosiers set to be blocked from enrolling in traditional Medicaid and seemingly unlikely to have an Indiana alternative, Minott said they still have plenty of options to obtain health care.

“We will be making sure they are aware of the community health centers in their communities, free clinics that are available in multiple places around the state and other safety net-type resources,” Minott said.

Anyone with passing familiarity with our medical system might be skeptical as to how “plentiful” these “safety net-type” resources really are.

More on VRA: Judge Posner eviscerates doctrine of “equal sovereignty”

by 1 Comment

I generally feel better when I’m the company of Judge Posner. I’m not always on board with his conclusions, but he’s an awfully smart guy. He hits harder than I did on the majority’s notion of “equal sovereignty” in yesterday’s case striking down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act.

On this concept of “equal sovereignty,” used to justify striking down the VRA because it treated the old Confederacy more harshly than other states in terms of flexibility for changing voting procedures, Judge Posner says, “This is a principle of constitutional law of which I had never heard—for the excellent reason that, as Eric points out and I will elaborate upon briefly, there is no such principle.”

He points out, for example, that some states, like Utah were admitted to the union only on the condition that they outlaw polygamy. Other states did not have their status in the union conditioned on the state of their polygamy laws. Judge Posner is skeptical of the states rights rhetoric from the majority:

That evidence—the record before Congress—should have been the end of this case. For apart from the spurious principle of equal sovereignty, all that the majority had on which to base its decision was tenderness for “states’ rights.” One doubts that this actually is a primary value for any of the justices. The same conservative majority that decided Shelby had rejected a more cogent argument for states’ rights when it held three years ago in McDonald v. City of Chicago that the Second Amendment—a provision of the Constitution designed to secure state autonomy—specifically, the right of states to maintain their own little armies, the militias, against federal abolition—creates rights against states’ limiting gun ownership. It seems that the court’s regard is not for states’ rights in some abstract sense but for particular policies that a majority of justices strongly favors.

Filed Under: Law