I had the pleasure of sitting down with Mike Kole yesterday to talk libertarianism, Libertarianism, Obama, and major party dynamics. The podcast is here.

It was a lot of fun, and I’m really glad I took the opportunity when Mike suggested it. Because I’m a busy creature of habit, my general tendency is to stick in my hectic, yet comfortable, rut. I’m glad I veered out of the rut momentarily for this one. Mike’s set up is really slick. Amazing how you can carry a radio studio in a bag whereas, my understanding is, not so long ago, the machinery and wires involved were substantial.

In the Indiana political blogosphere (rarefied company there), I suspect I talk more about Libertarians more than any other non-Libertarian. (Note the big “L” designating the party as opposed to the closely related philosophy.) For most of the 90s, I self-identified as a Libertarian, more or less. The realities of the two party system and the Bush administration made me come to regard that identification as something of a luxury. I have also come to see the party as emphasizing tax cuts first, last, and always as opposed to the civil liberties issues over which I am more strongly aligned with libertarianism. In addition, my association with liberals over the years has probably strengthened my utilitarian tendencies as well. My political views are a warring hodge-podge of philosophies, so my consistency leaves a lot to be desired.

At any rate, talking politics is always a lot of fun, and Mike, among other things, is a skilled radio producer. So, as I said, the process was very enjoyable.

The Obama administration will not go down in history as a force of pure, unadulterated shining goodness, as it turns out. In fact, the Department of Justice’s state secret position (pdf) with respect to the NSA wiretapping cases is down right disappointing. (Link is to the government’s Motion to Dismiss in the Jewel v. NSA case.)

Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic has an entry entitled “Shut Up: It’s Still a Secret” (h/t Reverent & Free) commenting on the government’s assertion of the executive branch’s common law prerogative to protect classified information which would should shut down any litigation against the National Security Agency for its arguably illegal warrantless surveillance program. The Electronic Frontier Foundation is currently running a hyperbolic graphic saying “Obama Position on Illegal Spying: Worse Than Bush.” If you click through the link, the statement is modified somewhat to “In Warrantless Wiretapping Case, Obama DOJ’s Arguments are Worse than Bush’s” (h/t Mike Kole).

Ambinder suggests that the Obama administration is trying to figure out how to disengage from the Bush-created thicket without weakening the executive branch’s prerogatives for more legitimate undertaking. I hope this is the case. At the end of the day, however, it’s basically the administration saying “trust us” which we are reluctant to do when we potentially have (or had) government employed spooks indiscriminately sucking up telephone traffic from good guys and bad guys alike. The fundamental problem with a “trust us” argument is that, even if this group of people have their heart in the right place, the next group may not. This brings to mind Federalist #51 on the subject of checks and balances:

But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

(Emphasis added) The state secrets argument creates a situation where there is no effective check or balance.

Nevertheless, for the time being, I can’t embrace the “Obama is as bad as/worse than Bush” argument. Covering up the past administration’s transgressions isn’t good; but it’s not “as bad as” committing the transgressions in the first place. I have a hard time believing that the Obama administration will be as indifferent to Constitutional limitations as the Bush administration was. Take, for example, Obama’s decision to appoint Dawn Johnsen to the Office of Legal Counsel. She is a Constitutional scholar who has worked for, among others, the ACLU and has characterized (at least in the case of the Bush administration) broad readings of executive power as “outlandish.” Whether she would offer opinions that limit executive power once she was working for the Obama OLC remains to be seen, but appointing someone who has taken that sort of stance in the past suggests that President Obama does not view the Constitution as a mere piece of paper to be gotten around.

Mike Bennett, writing for the Palladium-Item, has an article on the efforts of Mark Zimmer who intends to climb to the highest point in all 50 states to bring attention to Alzheimers. His grandfather is battling the disease and his great-grandmother died of the disease.

Currently, he is summitting the highest peak in Indiana — not exactly a mighty challenge — but the western states will provide sterner tests. The highest point in Indiana is Hoosier Hill in Wayne County, a lofty 1,257 feet. By contrast, Mount McKinley in Alaska is 20,320 feet and Mount Elbert in Colorado is 14,440 feet.

Zimmer’s intent is to average one state per month.

This AP story out of Pittsburgh is disturbing on so many levels. Three police officers were killed responding to a call that started with a domestic dispute over a dog urinating in the house.

Margaret Poplawski was arguing with her son, Richard, over a dog that peed in the house. It escalated to where she was determined to kick him out, and she called the police. They responded, and Richard shot the two responding officers with a rifle.

Apparently Richard had been stockpiling weapons because “was concerned about his weapons being seized during Barack Obama’s presidency” and “believed that as a result of economic collapse, the police were no longer able to protect society.”

A third, off-duty, but in-uniform officer was killed as he responded to help the officers while on his way home. A four hour stand-off ensued, and Richard was captured.

The two main points that stand out to me from this story are that: 1) We should consider incidents like this when we second guess the tactics of officers in less tragic situations or where tragedy is on the suspect’s end. They respond to a simple domestic dispute and three police officers lose their lives as a result. That doesn’t mean officers get a free pass, but we should cut them some slack when they’re doing a job in which this is the downsided.

2) The tone of the anti-Obama rhetoric has some pretty ugly consequences. Yeah, this guy was apparently a crazy sociopath, so we can’t pin it entirely or even primarily on Glenn Beck and his ilk, but the cries of socialism, fear mongering about Obama grabbing his guns, and most importantly the apocalyptic macho “cold dead hands” posturing is taken seriously in some quarters. I’m a First Amendment nut and, therefore, don’t think any government action should be taken to restrict, regulate, or punish such speech. But I think citizens considering such rhetoric should tell the people using it exactly how full of crap they are.

Update More on the Glenn Beck connection from the ADL via Balloon Juice.

This last comment was a reference to popular right-wing conspiracy theories about Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-constructed prisons and concentration camps for U.S. citizens. Such conspiracy theories had long been staples of the militia movement, but received a reinvigorating shot in the arm following the election of Barack Obama as president. Almost overnight, right-wing conspiracists across the country revived all of their 1990s militia conspiracy theories about the “New World Order,” planned gun confiscations, and government plots against the citizenry. Once more, wild speculations about SHTF (“s—t hits the fan”) and TEOTWAKI (“the end of the world as we know it”) scenarios became rampant.

Poplawski bought into the SHTF/TEOTWAKI conspiracy theories hook, line and sinker, even posting a link to Stormfront of a YouTube video featuring talk show host Glenn Beck talking about FEMA camps with Congressman Ron Paul. When the city of Pittsburgh got a Homeland Security grant to add surveillance cameras to protect downtown bridges, Poplawski told Stormfronters that it was “ramping up the police state.” He said, too, that he gave warnings to grocery store customers he encountered (but only if they were white) to stock up on canned goods and other long-lasting foods.

Via Oliver Willis

Jeff Wiehe of the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette wrote one of the more slanted stories I’ve seen in awhile. This isn’t Republican v. Democrat. Rather, the Journal Gazette wanted access to video tapes of an incident involving a police chase that resulted in the shooting death of the suspect.

The Journal Gazette complained to the public access counselor when the tapes were withheld, and the public access counselor decided the public records laws allowed the Fort Wayne police to withhold the information. The news story that resulted wasn’t so much informative as it was a bitch fest by the Journal Gazette about not getting what it wanted.

“There may be a problem with the law,” said Tracy Warner, editorial page editor of The Journal Gazette. “There seems to be no deadline on how long investigatory materials can be kept from the public.”

Or maybe it’s not a problem, but a feature. Perhaps the General Assembly included the investigatory exception to the public access laws for law enforcement agencies to encourage forthrightness during criminal investigations without fear that whatever is disclosed will be splashed over the public news. Opinions can differ on whether the exception ought to apply to this police video — but that doesn’t strike me as “a problem with the law.” (Incidentally, if I were the paper, notwithstanding the public access counselor opinion — I would argue in court that the video was a public record before it was part of an investigation and, therefore, ought not to be exempt. Not sure it would work, but it seems like a fruitful angle. Tracy Warner, in the article, seems to be ahead of me on this thought.)

But, back to the article’s bias:
#City paid “what it called” an independent consultant.
#Makes sure to note the consultant’s report absolving the city is merely a one page report.
#Scare quotes used around “investigatory” a number of times.
#Quotes from people who disagree with the ruling, no note of whether people who agree with the ruling were available for or declined comment.
#Quote from “local businessman” whose connection with suspect/victim is unclear with no particular training or expertise who says he’s seen the tape and the “death should never have happened and that no police officers were in harm’s way.”

Overall, the article seems designed to lead to the conclusion that the police wrongfully killed a man and now they are acting wrongfully to cover up their shadiness. Maybe that’s the case. But, maybe, just maybe, the public access laws are being faithfully adhered to here; aside from the public access laws, the police
are in a litigation posture because of the civil suit that legitimately calls for limited distribution of the evidence, and the situation was such that the police officer was acting in an objectively reasonable fashion when he fired the shots. But the alternative is not really suggested by the article, and I get the sense that the reason the alternative is not suggested is because people at the newspaper are irritated about not getting the tape they wanted.

Update A shorter, more neutral version of the story is here.

There is very little that is guaranteed in this world, but one bed rock principle you can bank on is that babies love rocket fuel as surely as they love onions.

Traces of a chemical used in rocket fuel were found in samples of powdered baby formula, and could exceed what’s considered a safe dose for adults if mixed with water also contaminated with the ingredient, a government study has found.

The study by scientists at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked for the chemical, perchlorate, in different brands of powdered baby formula. It was published last month, but the Environmental Working Group issued a press release Thursday drawing attention to it.

The chemical has turned up in several cities’ drinking water supplies. It can occur naturally, but most perchlorate contamination has been tied to defense and aerospace sites.

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee indicated their desire to turn Judge Hamilton’s confirmation hearings into a political food fight by boycotting them. Hamilton has been nominated to move from his current position as a District Court Judge in the Southern District of Indiana to the 7th Circuit Court Appeals.

Senator Lugar, for his part, indicated his “enthusiastic support” for Judge Hamilton.

Some commenters on the right have made it clear they will try to score points against Judge Hamilton by misrepresenting his decision on the legislative prayer case. For an example, read this excellent evisceration by Ed Brayton of such a column by Jonathan “Son of Jerry” Falwell.

The feds have issued a report indicating some significant problems with the Department of Workforce Development, its error rate in handling unemployment insurance payments, and its handling of contracts.

I have read several news reports about the report, but I am having trouble getting a grip on how the Department mishandled unemployment insurance payments. In particular, it’s not real clear to me if it was overpaying people who were supposed to get payments, paying people who weren’t supposed to get payments, or not paying people who were supposed to be getting payments.

According to the AP article by Ken Kusmer:

[The report said ] Workforce Development was responsible for 11.2 percent of improper unemployment insurance payments in 2007 – five times the national rate of 2.3 percent – and noted that some managers averaged 250 cases, increasing the risk of poor service.

It also chided the agency for failing to check a database known as the National Directory of New Hires when it calculates unemployment insurance payments to ensure recipients are reporting all of their wages.

A federal mandate required all states to begin using the directory by Jan. 1, 2008.

With the unemployment insurance fund being empty and running on loans from the federal government, every dollar paid in error is kind of a big deal.

The report also found problems with some of the Department of Workforce Development’s contracts, including significantly, a rushed $7 million contract awarded to Ivy Tech last June for vocational and academic training and other services. The contract apparently does not provide for much in the way of accountability. This is probably most significant because of Ivy Tech’s notoriously cozy relationship with a number of lawmakers. There may well be nothing improper about the relationship, but the close relationship means that the interactions between Ivy Tech and the State should undergo a little more scrutiny.

Richmond won the “All-American City” Award back in 1987. The award is a designation of the National Civic League. Now, the city is trying again, according to an article by Rachel Sheeley in the Richmond Palladium-Item. Richmond was named one of the finalists for this year. Other Indiana cities in the running this year are Fort Wayne and South Bend.

The honor is given to ten winners each year for outstanding civic accomplishments. This year’s finalists have created jobs, revitalized their downtowns, and reduced crime, among other accomplishments.

“The All-America City Award (AAC) is like a civic ‘Oscar’ for communities of all sizes,” said National Civic League President Gloria Rubio-Cortés. “It’s unique because it recognizes the efforts of entire communities. AACs demonstrate inclusiveness, collaboration, civic engagement, and innovation.”

An All-America City has a proven capacity for community-based problem solving, grassroots civic engagement and cooperation between sectors (public, private and nonprofit). To become a finalist, each participant completed an application documenting three community projects that address local challenges such as job creation/economic development, environmental sustainability, neighborhood revitalization and disaster recovery.

The Richmond application has a unique wrinkle in that it was prepared primarily by area kids, with a group of area eighth graders forming the core.

A core group of Logos eighth-graders, including Alaina Keene, Elaine Brady, Matt Sheridan, Haley Owens, Andrew Stevens and Shauna Flanagan, did much of the research and compiled the written application. They had assistance from [Mary Jo] Clark, Pat Heiny, Fonda Wilds, Valerie Westbrook, Kathy Lucid, Judy Studebaker and Francie Klinge.

That’s pretty cool to see kids digging down and trying to help out their city like that. In particular, I was happy to see that Francie Klinge was part of the effort. She is a teacher and the mother of one of my long-time friends, and has always been a favorite among the area kids. In my experience, she has always been very kind and approachable without being patronizing to children — a tough and oddly rare blend. (The others listed may well share the same qualities, but I just happen to know Francie.)

So, good luck Richmond!