FAIR takes a look at what pundits had to say about Iraq back in the spring of 2003. Some of my favorites:

“The war was the hard part. The hard part was putting together a coalition, getting 300,000 troops over there and all their equipment and winning. And it gets easier. I mean, setting up a democracy is hard, but it is not as hard as winning a war.”
(Fox News Channel‘s Fred Barnes, 4/10/03)

“What’s he going to talk about a year from now, the fact that the war went too well and it’s over? I mean, don’t these things sort of lose their–Isn’t there a fresh date on some of these debate points?”
(MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, speaking about Howard Dean–4/9/03)

“Over the next couple of weeks when we find the chemical weapons this guy was amassing, the fact that this war was attacked by the left and so the right was so vindicated, I think, really means that the left is going to have to hang its head for three or four more years.”
(Fox News Channel’s Dick Morris, 4/9/03)

“Speaking to the U.N. Security Council last week, Secretary of State Colin Powell made so strong a case that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein is in material breach of U.N. resolutions that only the duped, the dumb and the desperate could ignore it.”
(Cal Thomas, syndicated column, 2/12/03)

Niki Kelly, writing for the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, has a story reporting that key House and Senate Republicans have crafted a compromise on the Indiana Toll Road privatization bill they believe can win final approval in both chambers. The key seems to be giving everybody what they want and pork, lots of it.

The reported compromise commits $4.23 billion of the $3.85 billion payout. State budget director Chuck Schalliol says we’ll make up the difference through interest. He figures we can still cover the first 8 or 9 years of the state’s 10 year road plan, maybe all ten if we stretch.

Northern Indiana counties get a pile of money. The state picks up the tab on a toll freeze until the electronic tolling is enabled. After that motorists can get an electronic toll road pass that provides a 40% discount on tolls. On I-69, the Governor would have to get legislative approval only if he wanted to route I-69 through Perry Township in Marion County and if he wanted to impose tolls north of Martinsville. If the interstate routes around Perry Township and imposes tolls only between Evansville and Martinsville, he can sell a toll road concession without further approval.

So everybody wins. Except, of course, for the motorists of northern Indiana. And their Senators and Representatives in northern Indiana  if they defy the will of their constituents and pass this unpopular bill at the insistence of the Governor who is basically radioactive in northern Indiana. And, pretty much all Hoosiers who live here for the last 65 years of the 75 year lease. So, almost everybody.

The Louisville Courier Journal has an article on the use of expert witnesses in litigation.

Expert witnesses have been the objects of derision since at least 1897 
when a Harvard Law Review writer said there are “three kinds of liars: the common liar, the damned liar, and the scientific expert.”

The Indy Star has a good editorial today that traces the case of one businessman’s campaign contributions to show the value of the open records law. Specifically, it traces the $17,000 spread out among key Republicans and Democrats over a three month period by Rod Aycox, whose business is Loan Max which engages in “a segment of the consumer finance sector called title lending, often described as predatory lending by consumer activists.”

The editorial traces SB 383 which would have been of great benefit to Loan Max and its defeat, for this session, 24 to 25 in the Senate.

The Kole Hard Facts of Life has a good entry entitled “Trust Me!” on the Macquarie Infrastructure Group CEO’s appearance in Indiana to pitch the Toll Road privatization scheme.

When the CEO of the company feels compelled to try to sell the deal through the media, my nonsense detector starts beeping. When any salesman works too hard to tell you what a great deal he’s bringing to you, it’s time to run for the door. When the Governor tells you you’re for this deal or against the future, you know there is a lack of confidence in the strength of the deal.

Kole goes on to note the Daniels Administration’s shrewd dealing, or lack thereof, on the Colts naming rights deal and concludes that there is every reason to believe that the lack of business savvy displayed there has carried over to the Toll Road privatization proposal.

Mainly I just wanted to post that IU plays Wisconsin today in the Big Ten tournament at 2:30 p.m. on ESPN. But, as long as I’m at it, have a link from the Indy Star on Marshall Strickland’s emergence as a leader on the team.

David Hoppe has an article on Judge Hamilton in Nuvo entitled “Deciding Controversy.” Hoppe discusses Judge Hamilton’s decision in Bosma v. Hinrichs which enjoined the Indiana House of Representatives from conducting sectarian prayer as official business of the state. However, he did not discuss the matter with Judge Hamilton. Instead, Judge Hamilton mainly discusses his experiences as a judge and his approach to the law generally.

I liked this opening:

The federal courthouse is serious as a fist.

It’s worth a read.

I came across a WNDU story from March 3 entitled “Strong opposition lingers against proposed toll road lease.”

The figures come from constituent surveys taken by state Senators. In one Democrat State Senate District in South Bend, 93% were against a toll road lease. In a Republican Senate District in and around Bremen, 85% were against a toll road lease.

The polls are not scientific and contain data over several months, but presumably they are accurate enough that the Senators feel they are worth doing.  Unpopularity notwithstanding, 85% of Republican state senators voted for the toll road privatization.

In a phone interview with Republican Senator Dennis Kruse of Auburn, he said, “I think part of it is, they haven’t had a Republican governor for 16 years. So there’s a tendency to think we should support whatever our Republican governor proposes.”

Senator Kruse was one of five Republican Senators going against the governor’s wishes, by voting no.

“Now, we’re trying to take an asset of the state of Indiana, which is part of our infrastructure, and trying to make that into a money making machine. I don’t think that’s what the intent of our road system is for,” said Kruse.

Friday, Representative Tim Neese of Elkhart, spoke to school students who would be in their 80’s by the time the lease matured.

“It’s not automatic, that because you voted for it once, that you will vote for it again,” said Neese on Friday.

Citizens in northern Indiana should be opposed to this bill. The taxes they pay in the form of tolls (taxes not paid by residents in other parts of Indiana) will be increased significantly in large part so that road construction can take place in other parts of the state. Also keep in mind that part of the deal is that US 20 cannot be improved so that it provides an alternative to the Toll Road.  I think legislators from northern Indiana should think long and hard about whether they think their constituents should be used as piggy banks for the rest of the state.

In my mind, Indiana roads should be funded by taxes assessed generally against all of the citizens of the state, not by taxes paid almost exclusively by residents of one region of the state and certainly not where the roads will be constructed somewhere other than the taxed region.

The Senate concurred in the House amendments to SB 40 which addresses relocation issues in family law. Basically it requires a custodial parent or a parent who has parenting time with a child to file notice before the parent relocate’s the parent’s principal residence. The notice has to be provided at least 90 days before relocation. The nonrelocating parent may then request an evidentiary hearing within 60 days of the notice. If no hearing is requested, relocation is permitted. If a hearing is requested, the relocating parent has the burden of proving that the proposed relocation is made in good faith and for a legitimate reason. If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the nonrelocating parent to show that the proposed relocation is not in the best interest of the child.

This seems pretty reasonable for long distance moves. For short moves it seems potentially burdensome. But I deliberately keep away from family law, so maybe I’m wrong.

Charlie Averill, the “go to” source for the union perspective, has a post entitled “A Sneak Attack in The Dark of Night” in which he discusses Rep. Cindy Noe’s last minute introduction of an amendment that would have made Indiana a “right to work” state.

Charlie suspects that this legislation was destined to fail from the beginning but that it’s introduction was intended to attract campaign donations from large, out-of-state, anti-union corporations for the 2006 election cycle.