iPOPA Questions Governor Daniels on His Definition of Private Sector Job Creation

Dear Governor Daniels:

Speaking as a Hoosier, I guess I'd agree that the existence of a Hoosier job today that didn't exist yesterday is a good thing, so I don't mean to nitpick.

But I have a hard time with intellectual dishonesty, so when the Indianapolis Star reported today your announcement on the "creation" of 2,650 jobs, I was plagued by skepticism.

As you know, you announced that Indiana was benefitting from a 650-worker locomotive factory to be opened by Progress Rail Services, a 500-job service center for Ascension Health, and another 650 jobs at student loan firm Sallie Mae and call-center operator Affiliated Computer Services (ACS). This was in addition to the 850 jobs you announced earlier in the week to be created by two other companies.

Don't take offense, Governor, but given that these jobs are to be "created" over five years, can you tell how many will actually ever exist? I ask because you've held some press conferences next to CEOs who've made grandiose promises they never kept.

Remember when WTHR-13 in Indianapolis went to find the jobs you "created" and instead found a bunch of empty warehouses and cornfields? You must have been so embarrassed that we Hoosiers had been double-crossed! I suppose, however, that the sting didn't linger for you as much as for us since at least you got to use all those bogus job announcements to get re-elected.

Maybe being there in person to hear Progress Rail CEO Billy Ainsworth's inflection makes a difference, but he sure didn't sound all systems go when he said, "If the economy picks up and demand picks up, we'll go to full production."

Also, given your gift for political theater, I hope you will forgive me for thinking you knew long before Friday that these companies were going to "create" jobs, but you consolidated and held the announcements until a week before the election to achieve maximum political effect.

Speaking of political effect, what a great quote you gave! You nearly dislocated your shoulder patting yourself on the back when you said, "Weeks like this remind us that Indiana is a leader in private-sector jobs creation because we've built the best sandbox for business."

Governor, initially I wondering why nobody told you that Ascension Health is a not-for-profit entity. Then it occurred to me that you conservatives probably just lump not-for-profit job growth into the "private sector" since at least it isn't "government employment"?

But more importantly, Governor, is it really fair to say Indiana "created" jobs in cases like with Sallie Mae where the 350 new Indiana slots are the result of 2,000 people losing their jobs in other states? If we employed your logic, wouldn't India be "creating" more American jobs than any state in the union? When a company like Sallie Mae moves its workforce, maybe we should brag that Indiana not only has a great sandbox, it also is extremely skilled at picking up crumbling pieces from companies in other states before their inevitable departure overseas?

Oh, I also noticed you said ACS, the vendor who served as a subcontractor for IBM on your massive welfare automation boondoggle is going to add 300 jobs? Out of curiosity, if IBM sues ACS as a party in the lawsuit the State of Indiana has against IBM, will you have to treat ACS with kid gloves in the litigation to get the jobs? Also, are these 300 ACS jobs dependent on a parking deal, by chance? I know the Mayor of Indianapolis said that his colossally crappy 50-year parking lease would create 200 jobs. Tell me you aren't counting those chickens because I'm thinking they might not hatch.

Finally, Governor, I was under the impression you hated President Obama's stimulus package because you said it wasn't creating private sector jobs. Did I hear that right? If so, you must have been hating life when you announced that Abound Solar Manufacturing was creating twelve hundred manufacturing jobs making state-of-the-art solar panels in an abandoned Getrag facility in Tipton County? Maybe you saw in Time that there's been a whole new economy created by the stimulus?

Maybe if you'd spent less time on your anti-stimulus national posturing, we could have landed more Abounds and become renowned for our new energy economy. (Dude, green is right up your alley - that was the color of your campaign t-shirts!) But, hey, I'm sure it's hard to bash a stimulus package when you have to keep announcing jobs created by it, so I understand why you hung back.

Thanks for listening!

iPOPA Questions Governor Daniels on His Definition of Private Sector Job Creation

iPOPA Schools You on "Expectations Game" and Greg Ballard's Thin Line Between Hero and Con Artist

People who follow politics know the most consistent foe for an elected official or candidate is the “expectations game.”

If expectations get set high, the best case scenario is an “as good as expected,” which means you can never actually “win.” If they get set low, you might hold your own with a seasoned opponent just by asking him, “Can I call ya, Joe?” winking, and uttering a complete sentence.

In other words, as paradoxical as this sounds, having people expect nothing from you is great. But here’s an iPOPA corollary. If done right, playing up a catastrophe that isn’t is just as valuable.

Think about it.

You go to a restaurant, and they say you can’t be seated for an hour. But the next thing you know, your little chimichanga-shaped beeper is lighting up 30 minutes later. Or your auto mechanic says, “This will cost $600,” but when the works gets done, it’s only $425. Awesome, right?

Now imagine the scenario where a 3rd party, the manager, steps in at the restaurant and says, “Your wait is an hour? That’s won’t do at all. (To hostess) I want these folks to be seated within 30 minutes!” Or the body shop chief says, “We’re going to cut this bill to $425!” You’d love those people, right? But what if you found out later that the restaurant knew the wait was really probably going to be around 15-20 minutes and the mechanic really had the cost pegged at $350? Wouldn’t you feel suckered?

***

So I’m with my little man at the Marion County main library about two months ago, and as we're walking out, I see somebody I know on the library board photo. Two days later, I see this person, and I mention I was just at the Glendale branch, and that I hoped they could avoid closing it because it was jam-packed. The person responds that (s)he looked at the books and so has another "well-informed individual" and there are cuts to be had to keep the libraries open. I ask for confirmation, and I got what I felt was a pretty resounding expression of confidence.

That was a staggering revelation to me because I’d read the horror stories just like you all about the impending doom. I started wondering about who has a vested interest in claiming impending tragedy that really isn’t? My first thought was that this was an effort to sway referendum voters on whether they really want permanent property tax caps (more on that coming to you later). But then the Mayor swoops in with a solution that isn’t really, and as Democratic mayoral candidate Melina Kennedy pointed out, the financial pinch won't hit until 2014, so it's not like we're going to turn Keystone Avenue in front of the Glendale branch into to a Half-Price Books.

***

So next I hear Indygo is about to be reduced to apparently one bus that just drives in circles from 10th and College to West and Washington. [Okay, it wasn't really that, but it sounded equally cataclysmic.] The next thing I know, the Mayor swoops in with "solutions" that aren't really. I kid you not, his ideas are: (1) tap a $5 million Indygo line of credit without knowing how it will be paid back; (2) shift $1.6 million that has been set aside for insurance to cover lawsuits; and (3) take $3 million from capital improvements (i.e., making the buses less rickety) and use it for operating costs. And for this, the Star gives Ballard the headline: "Ballard Says City Will Help Indygo Pay Expenses." Wow.

My first thought was that Indygo must really know its drivers to put aside that kind of cash for liability. But here's the Mayor, deciding they’ll use this cash to keep the company operational instead of waiting for lawsuits that might never happen. Brilliant! Thank God Ballard is on the 25th Floor because certainly nobody associated with Indygo could have ever come up with "borrow, raid the reserves, and spend our legal funds and pray we hit fewer pedestrians this year."

My point is this … even though I know the economy is bad and dollars are probably tight in most places, after the Mayor's CIB inflated its deficit figures, because of most likely inflated Pacer operating losses, and because of the episodes above, I now find myself suspicious of the books of any entity that the Mayor controls directly or by appointment power or for whom he shills. They keep, curiously, putting him in a position to "save the day" only for us to later learn the day didn't really need saving to the degree claimed or that the saving was just for a day, not a long-term solution.

Conspiratorial? Alright, I admit it. But explain this. Mayor Ballard said he would go into the city and cut 10% of its budget. He hasn't come close. He smashed Bart Peterson for passing an increase in the County Option Income Tax (COIT). But notice he kept the money. Insiders will tell that if Peterson wouldn't have done the COIT, the Indiana General Assembly (cough - Luke Kenley) wouldn't have authorized a state takeover of police and fire pensions, which unloaded a huge burden on the city's finances. In addition, you have a massive federal influx of dollars, which I would wager means that if you add all revenue streams, Greg Ballard has more dollars at his disposal than any Mayor in Indianapolis history. (I'm going to get these numbers!)

So why is the Mayor raising taxes on almost every service provider in the county, and why do we need an imprudent, back-door tax increase in the form of a $170 million bond issue just to fund sidewalk repair? (I still don't know anybody who can say specifically how the separate $262 million from the back-door-tax-hike Cit Gas purchase of the water and wastewater operations will be spent).

Sorry, but, yet again, something doesn't add up here.

In the Ballard Superman story, maybe truth is the kryptonite, which is exactly why the administration, quite frequently, seems to have it tucked away in a lead box.

iPOPA Schools You on "Expectations Game" and Greg Ballard's Thin Line Between Hero and Con Artist

Navistar Clawback Cave Another Mayor Ballard Sellout for Immediate Financial Gratification

Ever notice how politicians who make the most references to doing things for "our children" or for "our future" are often most eager to sell out that future for their immediate political benefit?

Take Greg Ballard. Literally.

The Citizens Gas water deal? You've heard me ad nauseum on how we're mortgaging future water rates for sidewalks now.

But I predict you’ll see a similar story on downtown parking meters soon. The City wants to lease them to a contractor. Such a deal could pay a percentage of total dollars collected each year or a flat fee each year. But I foresee the mayor taking a lump sum up front in exchange for a lease term lasting the remainder of his permissible time in office times two.

(Maybe that’s why the Mayor is so confident that he won’t use the Cit Gas money to pay the $15 million in Conseco maintenance costs for the Pacers. He knows the money train is choo chooing into town).

But there are other indicia of Mayor Ballard's short-term fixation.

A few weeks ago, the Indianapolis Star’s Ted Evanoff reported on the City’s Navistar “clawback.” For the uninitiated, when city officials kowtow to business owners by giving them tax breaks, they do it frequently under the condition that a certain number of jobs will be created.

Indianapolis gave Navistar $18 million. When Navistar tanked and laid off 1,000, the City went to get its money. Navistar said no.

From the story:

When Navistar refused to repay the money, the city faced a long dispute in court. Rather than run up a big legal bill, Mayor Greg Ballard’s administration agreed the city would accept $5 million from the company.

First, the Office of Corporation Counsel is all sunk costs. The City pays the same amount to its lawyers whether anybody in the office works or not. So what the Mayor is admitting is that nobody in his office can litigate a contract case? Yow! That’s scary.

But for the sake of argument, let's run with his idea that his folks are too incompetent to handle this. Say litigating the case could have earned Indy an additional $4 million, or half of what we were promised. If so, eight Indy attorneys billing $250 per hour could each spend 10 hours per week every week for two entire years, and we'd still double our money.

Can any attorney out there conceive of how a contract interpretation case could have required more work than that? I can't envision how one would cost more than $250,000.

In short, the Mayor could have gotten the City a LOT more money, but he took pennies on the dollar. What good would more money do him if it didn't come until his successor occupied the 25th floor of the City-County Building?

Navistar Clawback Cave Another Mayor Ballard Sellout for Immediate Financial Gratification

A Gary Varvel Cartoon I Like!

I love his artistic style, but for the most part, not his politics or his humor. But I'm excited today because this almost NEVER happens. I agree with Indianapolis Star editorial cartoonist Gary Varvel!

Maybe there is hope for America if we can come together on an issue.

A Gary Varvel Cartoon I Like!

Mayor Ballard Plays Cloak and Dagger

Matt Tully has a great piece today in the Indianapolis Star on how Mayor Greg Ballard leaned on Republican city-county councilors in a secret cloakroom meeting to ensure that no smoking ban ordinance would ever reach his desk. He did this because he didn't want to have to veto the measure.

Many Republican bloggers contend Mayor Ballard had no ultimate hand in the measure not passing, as he didn't influence any votes.

That's really your defense?!?! That, yes, the mayor did put a dagger in the back of public health advocates by pressuring counselors to vote against the ban that he publicly supported during his campaign, but it's okay because he's so ineffectual as a leader that he couldn't persuade a single member of his own party to do an about-face?!?!

If I were City-County Councilor Ben Hunter (R), I'd be irate. Nothing is worse in politics than getting beaten up for a tough stand when you don't get the positive result. Had Hunter known the Mayor would veto the measure, does anybody think he would have been carrying the water for so long and taking arrows from every bar owner in Indy? Way to leave your guy hanging, Mayor!

At least now we know the Mayor's position on a full ban. There was some ambiguity before Tully's investigation. On WTHR-13, the news reporter actually said the following:

"The Mayor had previously stated that he was not sure if he was ready to sign such a bill (a full ban) into law. He said tonight that his position on the measure has not changed."

I laughed out loud. He actually told a member of the media that his position, which was to not have a position, remained the same. Way to remain fully committed....to your own ambivalence.

Mayor, let me introduce you to a well-known phrase from Congressman Andre Carson: bold leadership. Try it sometime. If you had done so, you wouldn't have public health advocates and Ben Hunter at your throat now, and Luke Kenley wouldn't be sore at you for disappearing into the rabit hole while he was taking political shrapnel for you with a CIB bailout proposal.

Mayor Ballard Plays Cloak and Dagger

Sunday Liquor Restrictions and the Intoxication of Competitive Protection

State Representative Ron Alting (R-Layafette) says in today’s Star that the interim study committee on alcoholic beverages will be gathering information regarding Indiana’s “blue laws.” I’ve never supported half-measure morality in the public sphere. For example, I thought it was ridiculous when we decided we would allow casinos in Indiana, but only if we put the gamblers on a boat and made them go 100 feet into a body of water, as if there were a morality cleansing. going on.

What makes half-measure morality worse is when powerful interests harness people of faith’s religious-based objections to protect their own profits. I say, "No more." Until we repeal the 21st Amendment repealing the 18th, sales restrictions are nothing more than protection against competition. This is true no matter how vehemently religious leaders insert “moral” objections as a way to assert their relevance in a debate that is long over.

You probably know that Indiana currently does not let grocery stores sell liquor on Sundays. One might assume a legislative decision was made to keep people from drinking on Sunday instead of going to church, right? Then why do we let people buy as much alcohol as they want on Sunday if they do it at a restaurant or bar? But for the fact that restaurant association has a stronger lobby, does this make sense to anyone?

Also, in Indiana, only liquor stores can sell cold beer. But for the fact that liquor stores have a strong lobby, is there any reason to leave this privilege just to liquor stores? If the belief is that cold beer results in overconsumption, alcoholism, or drunk driving, why would you have it available anywhere? If “cold beer” sales are all that’s keeping liquor stores open, I emphatically support extending this privilege to every business with a license. Liquor stores are cancers on every impoverished community in America, in particular in African-American communities. I wouldn’t shed a tear seeing all of these stores collapse.

If you need to put the liquor and the displays in a separate areas like video stores do with adult movies or cigarettes, so be it. But in my world, every entity that can sell ANY type of liquor should be able to sell every type of liquor it wants. Maybe Walmart and Kroger wouldn't sell hard stuff because of its "family-friendly" philosophy, and more power to them. But let us ("us" meaning we all but Republicans mostly since "unrestricted free markets" are their guiding philosophy) not act like we come at this from any "moral" basis. This debate will be about legislators protecting their friends' bank accounts.

You might also have these powerful interests throw in a dose of the "icky people" scare tactic for good measure. That's when someone tries to make you afraid of having to be near "icky" people at a grocery store because now (s)he won't stay with all the other undesirables outside the liquor store.

We'll see if I'm wrong. I doubt I will be. Not competiting is more intoxicating than cold beer from a grocery store on a Sunday.

Sunday Liquor Restrictions and the Intoxication of Competitive Protection

Has the General Assembly Given Felon Elected Officials Staying Power?

City-County Councilor Doris-Minton McNeil (D-District 15)now awaits a verdict, which Democrat Judge Annie Christ-Garcia took under advisement after concluding a one-day trial for D felony battery and resisting arrest charges (A misdemeanor).

The charges arose out of a June 2008 incident that started when Councilor Minton-McNeil called 9-1-1 (using some rather salty language) to inform police that a molester with a knife was in her home. Police arrived to investigate, and according to the allegations, Minton-McNeil shoved an officer and knocked her down, resulting in an injury to her wrist.

Jon Murray with the Star provides Minton-McNeil's explanation for her tone.

But as a lawyer, I'm interested in the following phrase from Murray's story:

"A guilty verdict on a charge of battery as a D felony would disqualify Minton-McNeil from holding elected office."

This sounds like she would have to resign, but I am not certain this statement is true.

The Indiana Supreme Court just addressed Indiana's disqualification statute, IC 3-8-1-5, and concluded that it stopped a felon from either being a candidate for office or assuming an office. It says nothing about stopping a felon from serving in an office.

In other words, unless there's another statute of which I'm unaware, it certainly seems that elected officials can serve out their terms following a felony conviction, as long as the conviction occurs after they assumed the office.

That, of course, is separate from whether a person should serve out his/her term. As a Democrat who cares about the party's reputation, my answer for Democrats who are convicted is always going to be an emphatic NO, they should not.

If the Indiana General Assembly thought a felony conviction meant you were dishonorable enough to serve at all, why wouldn't it also feel such a conviction made one too dishonorable to stay in office? Plus, what party in its right mind wants a recently convicted felon casting votes? (Please, please, please don't embarrass me on this if she gets convicted, Marion County Democratic Party!)

Does anybody have a different interpretation or know of another provision that forces the resignation of an elected official convicted of a felony?

Has the General Assembly Given Felon Elected Officials Staying Power?

Advance Indiana's Glaring Bigotry

This won’t be a revelation to most readers of Advance Indiana, but Gary Welsh has inescapably confirmed himself as an anti-Muslim bigot.

Miriam Webster’s defines a “bigot” as “one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred or intolerance." Using this definition, isn't the clearest way to engage in bigotry to insinuate group culpability for the evil deeds of a member of a group, as if all share the offender's flawed moral compass?

If so, Welsh engaged in a completely indefensible example of bigotry on Monday, June 15, 2009, in his report about Brima Kemokai, a Marion County Community Corrections technician charged with raping at least one woman on home detention.

Welsh wrote:

Murray’s report says Kemokai is a citizen of Sierra Leone, a predominantly Muslim county (sic) on Africa’s west coast.

Welsh was referring to Indianapolis Star reporter Jon Murray.

My first thought was, "What possible news purpose could Murray have for stating that Sierra Leone is "predominantly Muslim"?!?

Then I read Murray's story, and here's ALL it said:

(Kemokai) is a citizen of Sierra Leone who has permanent resident status, Brizzi said.

In other words, Welsh added the Muslim reference.

Why would Welsh do that, except to insinuate that Muslims are rapists who need to be kept out of America?

Welsh certainly cannot say he was satisfying his readers' craving for information about Sierra Leone, or he could have written that Sierra Leone is "the home of the world's largest natural harbor," "the home of the 7th lowest Human Poverty Index, or even "the country that gained notoriety for exporting blood diamonds."

Instead, Welsh chooses to emphasize Sierra Leone's "predominant" Muslim faith. (As an aside, estimates are that Sierra Leone is 60% Muslim, 30% Christian, and 10% native African faiths).

What makes Welsh's comment worse is that nobody has even reported that Kemokai self-identifies as a Muslim. Of course, if he did, that fact wouldn't indict other Muslims (except with bigoted readers) anymore than me pointing out the astonishing number of LEADERS of Christian churches who have been charged with molest and sexual harrassment indicts all Christians. (By the way, there are many anti-Christian bigots out there).

Is this confrontational of me? Sure. But Dr. King said time is neutral. It can either be used destructively or constructively. If we don't call out those who inflame bigotry, we let those with malignant objectives swing the pendulum toward their unjust ends.

I have previously suggested to Welsh privately that his coverage suggests an anti-Muslim and sometimes an anti-African-American bent in an effort to get him to think before he posts, but he apparently hasn't "gotten it." (Maybe the fact Islam is "predominantly" practiced in America by people who aren't white is more food for thought). Of course, since Welsh never posts any suggestion he might be using his blogging bully pulpit to whip up our worst human instincts, I feel compelled to say it here.

However, I'll extend to him a courtesy he never offers me.

Gary Welsh, respond here. I will post your entire defense, word-for-word, if you can offer one.

The tragedy is that Mr. Welsh frequently bests the mainstream media with his investigative reporting in this city. Unfortunately, he seems incapable of checking his inner demon - his unstoppable drive to tarnish Islam. As a Christian man, I can't let him do it any more. And neither should you.

Advance Indiana's Glaring Bigotry

Message to City-County Council: Don't Help!

It's pretty clear that Brendan O'Shaughnessy of the Indianapolis Star doesn't think much of the City-County Council's new ethics code.

Who can blame him?

The proposal gives all employees of the city-county carte blanche to vote on budgets, regardless of financial interest. Why this provision was included is obvious. Both Republicans and Democrats have several members who work for the city-county.

In fairness, I should point out that all legislative bodies can give themselves a pay raise for legislative work, which is certainly a "direct financial interest." We don't make that unethical. But maybe that's because we think the voters will take care of such staggeringly self-interested actions.

What about the more subtle ones? What about a police officer who votes for a massively-increased budget, knowing full well that increased salaries for all will follow? Or what about an employee who votes against across-the-board agency cuts for fear his job might be lost? How likely is the average citizen to know what has happened and respond accordingly?

Moreover, who can look at Monroe Gray's troubles and re-election and tell me citizens always police questionable conduct? Seriously, the bar for our ethics should be defined by which councilor's constituents are the most apathetic, "suckered," or "morally flexible?" Without a code, couldn't a guy consistently vote for his self-interest, make his constituents the beneficiary of questionable largesse, and never worry?

Sorry, but I will always believe that any thought about how I might benefit or suffer should not be part of the city-county councilor's deliberative process, and this code does nothing to stem those considerations. In fact, it explicitly authorizes them.

You see, the code also allows a councilor to vote on a matter if he or she stands to make $5,000 or less. It's unclear from the story whether this is an aggregate for the year, or per vote. Lord knows, I'm praying it's the former. Otherwise, we're going to lose our soul one chunk at a time.

You don't like the substance? Even the symbolic politics of this proposal was botched.

According to the Star, Bob Elrod, the council attorney, said the new code was not meant to suggest that a small benefit does not constitute a conflict of interest.

It suggests precisely that, Bob. Did anybody really think it wouldn't?

But here's my favorite part of the story:

Republican co-chairwoman Ginny Cain said the provision includes council members' spouses and dependent children. She said the intent, for instance, was to allow a council member's son to mow lawns in the neighborhood without having to investigate whether any neighbors have city contracts.

Whose son is getting FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS to cut grass? Uh...yeah, that would definitely be somebody trying to buy a city-county councilor through a family member because that "neighbor" certainly isn't paying the market rate!

Trying to inspire confidence, once again the city-county council just took away what we had left.

Message to City-County Council: Don't Help!

Whoever Said the Pen Is Mightier Than the Sword Never Got Stabbed By One...and Marijuana is the Illegal Drug?!?

So I'm reading the Indianapolis Star yesterday morning, specifically the story about the guy who got drunk and killed two people....with a sword. According to the Star, the guy went from a happy to an "angry drunk." Ya think?

(As a quick aside, the sword story is great news for the gun lobby. The next time someone says we should restrict firearm acquisition, they'll just say, "You take away the guns, they'll just kill with samarai swords! Guns don't kill people. People with alcohol and swords kill people").

Alcohol is allegedly responsible for around 100,000 deaths per year. You get about 43,000 alcohol-related driving fatalities, then you add the fact that alcohol-related 60% of all homicides, 40% of all fatal accidental falls, 30% of all suicides, 30% of all fire fatalities, 15% of all deaths from respiratory system diseases, and 5% of all deaths from circulatory system disease. Now tally up the alcohol-related domestic violence, rapes, vandalism, and alley urinating. I forgot to add that this year we had one alcohol-related death at my alma mater, a college of approximately 800. That number exceeds the total number of deaths I’ve been able to find in the entire country that are attributed to marijuana this year. And marijuana is the illegal drug?

When was the last time you heard somebody smoked a joint and even got angry, let alone actually killed somebody?

People may read this as me being a stoner advocate, but I don't smoke marijuana. I just no longer see the value of the massive costs for waging a drug war against a drug that is so much less harmful than many drugs we sanction.

The FBI uniform crime stat report shows that American law enforcement made 1.8 million drug arrests in 2007, but 775,000 of those were for marijuana possession alone, and 97,583 of them were for dealing marijuana alone.

Now, I do not subscribe to the semi-hysterical claim that everybody in prison is there because they got caught with a single joint. This is because I read a pretty intriguing report from the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, and if the government says it, it must be true.

So I paid attention when the government told me that most marijuana users get a fine and diversion and that, when the report was written, ten jurisdictions - California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Ohio, and Oregon—had eliminated incarceration as an option for a FIRST offense of simple possession of marijuana. Fines in most of those states range from $100 to $300, with Oregon allowing a fine of $500 to $1,000 and Nevada authorizing a fine of up to $5,000.18.

Putting aside why Nevada felt compelled to add the $.18 instead of just leaving it at a $5,000 fine, doesn't this evidence cut both ways? We actually spent untold man hours arresting 775,000 adults so we can send them to diversion?!? What a colossal waste of law enforcement manpower that could have been used solving violent crimes or keeping officers on the street to deter property crimes.

But the government only tells HALF the truth on incarceration. How many people are in jail on other offense now because they have had probation and parole revoked for only marijuana use? Some folks I know in the Marion County Probation Department say anecdotally that ALCOHOL and marijuana use are the two most common grounds for revocation of probation. Also, the government report omits what people get for a second or third marijuana possession offense. In other words, a fair phrasing of the question might be, "How many fewer people would be in jail or prison if marijuana were legal?" That number would be higher than the government admits.

Oh, I forgot to mention that tobacco causes 435,000 deaths annually, but that's completely legal to use, too.

You may say, Chris, marijuana is a “gateway” drug. People who use it go on to harder drugs. This is true. But you know the two primary gateway drugs in every study? Alcohol and cigarettes. Columbia University’s Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse found that youth who drank alcohol were 50 times more likely to use cocaine and those who smoked tobacco were 19 times as likely to use cocaine. What about marijuana? We don’t know. The number apparently isn’t significant enough for Columbia to tell us.

The time has come to either ban cigarettes and go back to prohibition or make marijuana legal. If we pick the latter, we can discourage its use through PR campaigns paid for by ever increasing taxes, which we'll use to fund healthcare. I’ll let you decide which approach makes America less hypocritical.

Whoever Said the Pen Is Mightier Than the Sword Never Got Stabbed By One...and Marijuana is the Illegal Drug?!?

Woe is Marsh! Don Should Have Followed the Star!

Don Marsh, the legendary grocery & party icon, takes a hit (no, not of congac) today in the Indianapolis Star from the new management group that purchased Marsh for $88 million.

Current management has sued Marsh for for abusing the company jet on over 300 trips for non-business purposes. All of these allegations may be true, but current management certainly wants to humiliate Marsh, as its complaint includes allegations that he took trips with "female employees" and then spent money on the same trips at "department stores."

Public reaction to this story is interesting, with most commentators taking an either or view. Marsh's defenders say the new group is trying to distract from its own performance woes.

When did our world become so black and white? These two things can both be true: (1) Don Marsh abused company funds, and he should reimburse the company. (2) Marsh’s current management group overpaid for the chain, and even WITH the reimbursement, they’ll still be in trouble.

But there's a larger lesson for Marsh and all other executives contemplating abusing their power. Disguise the trips by doing what The Indianapolis Star did with their Pacers contract!

As readers of this blog know, the Pacers recently took 60 corporate representatives, some from the Star, on a five-day, all-expenses paid vacation to Cancun. When questioned why the Pacers would do this while begging for a bailout from the CIB, the Pacers' spokesperson said the trips were part of their contracts (i.e., "we HAD to take them to Cancun and give them jewelry because that's what our contract with each company required).

Don, instead of just bilking the shareholders outright, which leaves a paper trail, you should have entered into a bunch of contracts with other vendors, overpaid them on the contract, BUT inserted requirements in the contracts that the vendors would pay for a boatload of your personal travel. See how easy it is to abuse corporate perks if you work the system the right way?

The Indianapolis Star needs to release to both the general public and to their shareholders the identity (and title) of every employee who attended the Pacer trip. And any other publicly-traded company with a similar "pay me to vacation" contract with the Pacers needs to follow suit.

Kudos to K.U. professor Dave Stone for bringing the shareholder angle into focus.

Woe is Marsh! Don Should Have Followed the Star!

Oh, Indianapolis Star! You are SO silly! Editorial Sanctions Wyss Efforts

Today's Indianapolis Star supports State Senator Tom Wyss's effort (which I addressed last week) to require 50 hours of driver training and a cell phone ban for all drivers under age 18.

The Star's editorial has two fascinating statements. Here's the first:

As for cell phones, there's no question they are a dangerous distraction for drivers of any age. They are worse for new drivers, and banning everybody is politically impossible.

First, notice that The Star believes cell phones are dangerous for "new" drivers, but neither the phone ban nor the training hours are based on driving experience. A fifty-five-year-old woman who has never driven because her husband always did until he passed away can get licensed with no training and dial her friends, but a responsible 17-year-old can't, even on speaker.

If this law was designed to address "new" drivers (rather than being a politically-convenient, age-based generalization), the law would say that ANYBODY seeking a license must have driver training and cannot use a cell phone for a period of years after licensure.

There are young drivers who are more responsible than "seasoned" drivers, and I see this every day. In the past year alone, I have almost had six different drivers hit me, and they were ALL middle-aged adults on cell phones. (In fairness, I was on mine when I almost hit somebody three months ago).

But here's the second interesting Star quote:

More than 5,000 teens die on America's roads every year and 16-year-old drivers have 10 times the accident rate of those 30 to 59.

Where's the part about how 40% of those teen deaths are from alcohol-related crashes and that 36% of those fatalities are "roll overs." (What percent of teen accidents are even cell phone-related?!? We don't know! We might get more bang for our buck keeping our teens out of SUVs). Also, isn't it interesting that there's no reference to the accident rate of those from 18 to 29, or specifically the fact that the fatality rate is HIGHER for drivers between 21-24 than for 16-20?

You see, looking at those kind of facts would require us to grossly generalize against somebody of voting age. It might be "politically impossible" to ban everybody, but Senator Wyss won't even TRY to ban anybody who can vote.

Senator Wyss, I commend you for getting the .08 blood alcohol limit passed in Indiana, so as a courtesy, let me show you how you save lives on this one without requiring me to get all the eighteen-year-olds in the state to raise up against you for so clearly targeting them.

It's a two-part plan based on novel concepts known as "experience-based protection" and "individual responsibility."

1. Anybody who is being licensed or re-licensed after a "non-driving" period of four years or more must go through the supervised driver training.

2. Anybody who hasn't been licensed for at least three years cannot use a cell phone.

(I'll save for another day the fact that cell phone use, MINUS texting, is less dangerous than fast food restaurants that prompt people to drive with their elbows because they has supersized Cokes in their right hands, Quarter Pounders in their left hands, and french fries wedged between their left legs and their consoles).

3. Anybody, regardless of age, whose cell phone was in use immediately prior to or during an accident has a lifetime cell phone ban. The same is listed on the license with the other restrictions.

4. Anybody with three chargeable accidents in any three-year period has his/her license revoked until (s)he completes 50 hours of supervised training. I've been driving for over twenty years, and I've had two accidents chargeable to me in that time. If you cause three accidents in three years, you are a clearly an inattentive menace who needs to come off the road before you kill someone.

This simple four-point plan will save lives because it gets at the people who are REALLY the problem. But guess what? You won't do it.

It's easier to stick it to teenagers who cannot vote while the rest of us maintain our arrogance about how attentive we are as drivers, even though we just backed into the garage door or drove off from the gas station with the pump nozzle still in the car.

If you take alcohol-related accidents out of the mix, do you know who is involved in the most "attention deficit" related accidents? Old people. Not all of them, of course, because many are exceptional drivers. Just a disproportionate number that would seemingly put them under the public safety microscope for retraining at a particular age.

Let me know when Senator Wyss and The Indianapolis Star start messing with the AARP crowd. Then you'll know they're serious about public safety and not just grabbing the low-hanging fruit.

Oh, Indianapolis Star! You are SO silly! Editorial Sanctions Wyss Efforts

The Woman Who Destroyed History When She Couldn't Make It

The Clinton sabotage saga continues...

Mary Beth Schneider of the Indianapolis Star reports that only 47% of Hillary Clinton's supporters are "solidly" behind Obama. One Clinton delegate from Wisconsin already appeared in a John McCain commercial in which she urges Clinton supporters to defect. Given how clearly McCain's policies contradict Clinton's own, this reaction is can only be characterized as irrational, emotionally-driven "taking my ball and going home." Even ardent Clinton supporters, such as Indianapolis City-County Councilor Joanne Sanders see that.

(Am I going to be branded a sexist now because I called this woman's reaction "irrational?")

Now Clinton is set to take the stage to mend fences. I hope I'm wrong, but I detect "too little, too late." In cruel irony for Obama, the more spectacular Clinton is on the podium, the more she will fuel the discontent at what could have been. Clinton could have been on the phone all along directly to her key supporters, including this Wisconsin delegate, but did she do that? No. She just kept leaving the bread crumbs.

And that's why, according to the Star:

Republicans were hosting a "Happy Hour for Hillary" party Monday in Denver, inviting "open-minded Democrats" who might see McCain as the better qualified candidate.

In what other universe has one party's nominee been so easily torpedoed by its own people?

Respectfully, I must remind Councilor Sanders and those Clinton supporters who are upset that Clinton was not considered for VP of the divisive and insulting fear mongering that characterized the Clinton campaign. Had HRC wanted to be VP, she could have evened her tone and made it palatable for Obama to work with her. Instead, SHE chose to go for the win with scorched earth (though, admittedly, not as scorched as her consultant Mark Penn wanted to make to it).

Clinton can't cry now when she has to walk in ashes.

The Woman Who Destroyed History When She Couldn't Make It

Christian Marital Love Porn

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart is probably best known for saying that he could not define hardcore pornography, but he knew it when he saw it. Clearly, I can’t say the same thing regarding whether a photo is “too racy” for the Indiana State Fair.

The Indianapolis Star reports that Fair execs removed the work of its photography contest WINNER after two or three people complained each day that it was too risqué.

Please look at this photo, and tell me your thoughts. Here's mine. This guy says he’s a conservative Christian, which proves that those who want to censor will always devour their own because the next person’s sensitivity with be greater than the person before.

As is true with many life lessons, The Simpsons told the tale. Marge lead a successful protest against violence in cartoons (understandable), but when she wouldn’t lead a protest against Michaelangelo’s David because she thought it was a masterpiece that even children should see, she was accused of “being soft on full-frontal nudity.” That episode always cracked me up. Now it doesn’t seem so funny because those women apparently moved to Indianapolis.

Seriously, if this post-wedding photo is racy, how in the world does Indianapolis get away with the extremely mini, min-skirt wearing, sashaying woman in the electronic sign outside the Old Point Tavern on the South corner of Mass Ave? She looks like she should be in a hip hop video.

But what really amuses me about this story is that these are the same state fair execs who arguably brought you the first known example of "human-ing." (See fictitious rumors of "gerbiling" which dogged Richard Gere for years for comparison).

Specfically, the Indiana State Fair brought you a 40-foot long, four-foot tall model of a human colon with the porn name ("Coco") for you to "penetrate" fully, as you walk through it. No wonder Coco has hemorrhoids.

Also, no word on the number of complaints from the cockroach tractor pull. And, no, I'm not kidding.

Christian Marital Love Porn

The Jon Elrod I Thought I Knew

I've said some really good things about Republican Jon Elrod. He's a likeable guy, and he was the only Republican who refused to sign a PR ploy request for a vote on SJR-7, the constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage. There's NO WAY that could have been easy in the Indiana House Republican Caucus. Cajones of steel, said I. I've even tried, somewhat jokingly (but also somewhat seriously) to recruit him into the Democratic Party. Rest easy, Republican Friends of Elrod...absolutely NO success in that effort.

What I liked about him was that, while he would work hard for victory, I had the sense that as long as he did things "the right way," he could live with defeat. This was evident during the congressional debates before the special election. He could have bashed Andre Carson publicly, but he didn't. (Yes, I know. He hit him with some anti-gun mailers that weren't flattering, but compared to most scorched earth campaigns, one mailing is tame stuff). Call it gut instinct, but winning almost seemed secondary to running a good race for Elrod. In this respect, he personified the difference between people whose motivation is just "to make money" and those who adopt an attitude that if you do things the right way and do what you love, the money will follow. Elrod's initial run for HD 97 was not Step 1 in a ten-step scripted plan for obtaining the highest possible elective office.

But now it seems the political ambitions have stolen him. Brendan O'Shaughnessy of the Indianapolis Star reports that Jon Elrod has resigned as the R candidate from the 7th District Congressional race so that he can be appointed to fill a vacancy left in Indiana State House District 97, his old district which he had to forfeit to run against Carson in the first place. Elrod knew he had an easier chance to win in HD 97 than in a re-run of the special election, so he bailed out.

To paraphrse Ross Perot, I hear a giant sucking sound. It's Jon Elrod's credibility going into a toilet and flushing itself. (I guess this explains why I never got a response when I e-mailed and asked him to flatly deny the rumor that he was even thinking about this).

I suppose the likeability factor might still be there, but almost everything else is out the window. Jon Elrod went from being the guy who wanted to be your neighborhood congressman to the guy who just couldn't live without representing ANY neighborhood. He could have waited for two years, stayed active in the community and come back, but somehow he wasn't able to withstand either (1) the temptation of keeping and/or expanding power; (2) political pressure from the Republican Party, which had not been an issue before now; or (3) a combination of 1 and 2.
How can any constituent trust that he wouldn't sell them out to preserve his standing? He may have said he takes no pleasure in "walking away from a fight," but he actually sprinted away from it.

One could say that it's unfair for me to be disappointed in a candidate simply because I had an impression of him that turned out to be wrong. After all, he never claimed to impervious to the lure of power.

Yeah, good thing.

The Jon Elrod I Thought I Knew