A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

Masson's Blog

Civic Education and Media Failure

by 11 Comments

This AP article appearing in the Christian Science Monitor is an example of a missed opportunity for civic education.

While on Fox and Friends for some reason, Hank Williams Jr. made a comparison related to President Obama involving Hitler. The details of the comparison itself aren’t really that important. Pro tip for anyone near a microphone of some kind: unless your comparison involves a war of aggression, genocide, or other extremely literal comparison of Hitler, just look elsewhere for your metaphors. What if maybe your comparison is apt in some way? Doesn’t matter. Pick someone else in human history for your comparison. (Someone on the Internet suggested, “comparing Obama to Hitler is as ridiculous as comparing Hank Williams Jr. to his much, much more talented father.”)

But, that’s not what this post is about. As a consequence of his choice to use Hitler metaphors on television, ESPN decided to end its business relationship with Hank Jr. They no longer want to use him or his singing to introduce the Monday Night Football broadcast. Hank Jr. responded by saying that ESPN is violating his free speech rights.

“After reading hundreds of e-mails, I have made MY decision,” Williams said in a statement to The Associated Press. “By pulling my opening Oct 3rd, You (ESPN) stepped on the Toes of The First Amendment Freedom of Speech, so therefore Me, My Song, and All My Rowdy Friends are OUT OF HERE. It’s been a great run.”

This, in and of itself, isn’t a huge deal. Lots of people who wrap themselves in the flag don’t actually know much about the country’s founding document. (See, e.g., The Onion: “Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be”)

The problem is that the First Amendment precludes government regulation of speech. It does not, contrary to what Hank Jr. seems to assert, guarantee the right to be lucratively compensated by a private entity for appearing on the entity’s television show regardless of what one says in other places.

The second problem is that it would have taken the AP very little space to point out that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution has no bearing on this situation. It would have been a factual observation, requiring no independent opinion, that the AP could have included without using a lot of space. It would have made Hank Jr. look foolish, of course. But that ought not be he AP’s concern. Another option for the AP would have been to not report on Hank Jr.’s mutterings about the Constitution at all.

Supreme Court Reverses Court of Appeals on Slick Roadway Case

by Leave a Comment

Today, in Putnam County Sheriff v. Price, the Supreme Court overturned a Court of Appeals decision I complained about last year.

My description at that time:

The most recent installment involves a cold November morning at 5:30 a.m. where a Sheriff’s Deputy responded to an accident involving an icy roadway. Turns out the local water authority had a pipe leaking across the road. He called in the situation, and the local water authority that owned the pipe, among others, were notified. But, he didn’t hang around the site until the problem was fixed or stick around to wave off other motorists. Then, at 7:15 a.m., another motorist had an accident at the icy spot. The Indiana Court of Appeals held that the Sheriff could be liable for the second person’s injuries because, it concluded, “the Sheriff has a duty to warn the public of a known hazardous condition.” The court further opined that this duty was not closely enough related to things like preventing crime and providing emergency services to afford the Sheriff the immunity available for those activities.

The Supreme Court notes the general rule that a court is supposed to address immunity before looking at the question of negligence. “Immunity assumes negligence but denies liability.” But, frustratingly, it proceeds to ignore that general rule without really explaining why. But, in any case, without addressing whether the Sheriff was immune from suit, it decided that the Sheriff owed no duty of care to the Plaintiff under these circumstances.

The court reasoned that the Sheriff did not own or maintain the county road where the accident happened; the county highway supervisor is charged with maintaining the roads.

In my mind, this raises some interesting questions about the extent to which county government is regarded by the Supreme Court as a single unit. The Sheriff is a distinct, Constitutional officer, but the deputy who worked for him was, I presume, a county employee; as was the county highway supervisor. The highway department and the county board of commissioners are already defendants but not, apparently, parties to this particular appeal. I’m not sure this decision does anything in particular to shield the county from liability for the actions (or inactions) of the deputy Sheriff. A decision on law enforcement immunity may have.

Again: Mourdock & Chrysler – No Scenario Where Indiana Gets More Money

by 17 Comments

I’ve been over this a lot, but with Richard Mourdock challenging Richard Lugar, I keep seeing references to Mourdock’s quixotic decision to challenge the Chrysler bankruptcy decision as something other than ill-conceived, so I’ll mention the central point once again. There was no path to Mourdock’s challenge that resulted in Indiana getting more money.

As we might recall, Chrysler was dying on the vine. There was nobody willing to step in and pay much money for the company, so they filed bankruptcy. As part of the bankruptcy, a third-party was willing to step in and pay more money for the company than it would get through liquidation. That third-party in this case was the United States of America.

What really seemed to piss off Mourdock and his supporters is that the third party was willing to give the unions something. But, let me repeat, secured creditors got more under this deal than they would have under any other offer on the table or liquidation. Seems that, what Mourdock’s complaint boiled down to in essence, is that he wished the third-party’s offer gave secured creditors more. But there was never any showing that an outside purchaser had any obligation to pay secured creditors more than they would get from liquidation. If some other third-party wanted to offer them a better deal, they could do so, but there wasn’t any such entity.

That’s getting at the substance of Mourdock’s complaint; pretending that he had any right to drive this particular litigation. Procedurally, he was out of line. Indiana’s share of the debt was tiny, and it had agreed to let the majority holders of secured debt run the show. In that sense, it was doomed bringing the litigation in the first place, even if the state had had a plausible claim.

Then there is the fact that Mourdock had purchased Chrysler shares at distressed prices in the first place; those discounted prices reflected the risk inherent in the transaction.

And, there is the impact on Indiana’s manufacturing sector. The U.S. participation in Chrysler’s restructuring allowed Hoosiers to keep their jobs instead of suffering the fall out from liquidation.

And, I’ve been hearing that Gov. Daniels is spouting some nonsense about how Mourdock’s Chrysler litigation produced some kind of momentous Supreme Court decision. It wasn’t momentous, but a fairly routine Munsingwear order.

Wabash Heritage Trail 15k

by 1 Comment

I took part in an interesting race today. Planet Adventure put on an event at the Wabash Heritage Trail. The trail head starts behind the Tippecanoe Battlefield, heads across Burnett Creek then over the Wabash River and, if you keep following it, into Lafayette. They offer a variety of distances: 5k, 15k, half marathon, and marathon. I went with the 15k (9.3) because: a) my level of training is a little lacking for a half marathon these days; and b) I’d never done that distance.

It was a lot more challenging than your average flat, paved track. This was dirt path with lots of ups and downs, root dodging, the odd plank bridge, and even some (mostly not wobbly) stepping stones over the creek. The coolest part, in my opinion, is the foot bridge over the Wabash which was, I think, a converted train trestle. The most aggravating is that there are a few spots near the water with soft sand. When your legs are dead, the last thing you want is to hit a patch of soft sand.

But, the weather cooperated – it was a chilly start (37 degrees), but there was no wind to speak of. So, once we got going, I thought it was about perfect. It helped that I went with my buddy, Chris. He blew my doors off, but it was helpful that he said he never felt comfortable either. It was just a tougher run. I ended up in the middle of the pack – about 20 of 40. Glad I did it. I was well organized. I can’t say with confidence that I’ll be doing it again though. Maybe if they can get a liquor license and serve up beer at the end.

Encourage Investments Instead of Loans

by 1 Comment

Interesting discussion about recognizing one of our economic problems as being the incentive for wealth to be invested instead of merely loaned. Apparently this means limiting its liquidity and creating incentives for wealth to be locked up in productive activity rather than just loaned out in liquid fashion to profit on interest.

This discussion – to the extent I understand it; and I confess I’m no expert – ties in with some of the themes of Wealth and Democracy by Kevin Phillips and what he calls “financialization.” He looked at previous empires in decline and found that a lot of their economic activity got tied up in, basically, moving paper around instead of actually producing anything terribly useful and that this precipitated their decline.

Anthony Wayne: Daring Boy

by 2 Comments

I stumbled across a used book in a library clearance sale; “Anthony Wayne: Daring Boy.” It was part of a series called “Childhood of Famous Americans” and I think many were written by an author named Augusta Stevenson. I’d guess they are about 60-70% fictional and definitely reflect a 50s worldview; but I really enjoyed these books as a kid, and now I’m enjoying re-reading the Anthony Wayne one with Cole.

The other one I remember reading was Sam Houston: Boy Chieftain.

The pattern, in those books anyway, is that a boy with promise gets into tough situations, shows pluck, courage, and ingenuity and saves the day; goes on to be Famous American. Sort of a Horatio Alger thing, I guess.

Indiana Constitution: Article 1, Section 7 – 8

by Leave a Comment

A long time ago – about 4 years ago – I started doing posts on the Indiana Constitution. A few of you mentioned liking that, so I thought I might continue on with that “series.” So, we’re up to Article 1, section 7:

Section 7. No person shall be rendered incompetent as a witness, in consequence of his opinions on matters of religion.

My understanding is that, back in the 19th century, it wasn’t uncommon for judges to allow challenges to witnesses based on their non-belief in the hereafter; on the grounds that, if they swore to tell the truth but didn’t believe in divine retribution, then the oath wasn’t effective and the witness couldn’t be relied upon to tell the truth.

I did a quick search of the report of the debates from the Indiana Constitutional convention of 1851 and couldn’t find relevant discussion; but presumably someone came to the conclusion that, even with the oath, god-fearing witnesses weren’t necessarily reliable and, without the oath, atheists and Unitarians might find the truth from time to time.

Article 1, Section 8 goes along with 7 and states:

The mode of administering an oath or affirmation, shall be such as may be most consistent with, and binding upon, the conscience of the person, to whom such oath or affirmation may be administered.

The point of the exercise, obviously, is to impress upon the person swearing or affirming the importance of telling the truth and generally wake them up to the fact, Hey! This is important.

Self-Serve Grocery Lanes Disfavored

by 9 Comments

An AP story that showed up in the Lafayette Journal & Courier with a contribution from Max Showalter suggests that self-serve grocery lanes might be diminishing.

The articles says that studies are showing that most people prefer checking out with a live cashier and, therefore, some chains are phasing out the self-serve lines.

Market studies cited by the Arlington, Va.-based Food Marketing Institute found only 16 percent of supermarket transactions in 2010 were done at self-checkout lanes in stores that provided the option. That’s down from a high of 22 percent three years ago.

Overall, people reported being much more satisfied with their supermarket experience when they used traditional cashier-staffed lanes.

I’m definitely with the folks in the story who prefer the self-serve checkout lanes. It’s quick, easy, and I don’t have to deal with people.

Update Patton Oswalt has a bit:

Not a Fan of Open Primaries

by 12 Comments

Came across this language in an old Indiana Supreme Court case, Kelso v. Cook, 110 N.E. 987, 992-993 (Ind. 1916) and thought it was worth sharing:

But vastly more important, if [Art 2, sec. 2 of the Indiana Constitution] controls, any election of the precinct, though avowedly an adherent of no party, may participate on equal terms with party adherents in selecting its candidates, and the adherent of one party, with only single candidates for nominations, might, with safety to his own party, go into the camp of his political adversary and maliciously vote for its most unworthy candidates with the deliberate purpose of wrecking it. No political party ever held a voluntary primary open to others than its adherents, and it may be safely assented that no sane organization, political, religious, or otherwise, will ever voluntarily countenance such folly as permitting the selection of its officers by nonadherents. To assume that because of said constitutional provision non-Republicans may select the officers and candidates of that party, is as devoid of reason as the assumption that agnostics be permitted to elect the trustees of a church. To assert that Democratic or Progressive candidates may be selected by Republicans, Socialists, and adherents of no party, is as fatuous as the idea that a military strategist ought to submit his plans for his country’s defense to the commanding general of the enemy.

Ron Paul and John Huntsman the Most Honest of the 2012 GOP Presidential Candidates

by 7 Comments

Micah Cohen at 538 reports on Politifact’s grading of the veracity of 2012 GOP Presidential candidate statements. Probably the most important caveat to note is that it just grades those statements that piques Politifact’s interest; so there is a sampling bias.

That said, Ron Paul and John Huntsman, come off looking best in terms of truthfulness. More than half of what Ron Paul said was graded as “true” or “mostly true.” Huntsman scores 4 of 7 in those categories and without any “pants on fire” or “false” ratings (much smaller sample size, however.)

Michelle Bachmann, on the other hand, came off looking worst. 80% of her grades are “mostly false,” “false,” or “pants on fire.” Rick Perry doesn’t do well either – about 50% “mostly false,” “false,” or “pants on fire.” Mitt Romney is in the 36% range for those categories.

By way of contrast, President Obama is at about 29% in these categories