A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

Masson's Blog

Captain Stormfield Arrives at Heaven

by 1 Comment

I can’t remember if I’ve recommended Mark Twain’s short story, “Captain Stormfield’s Visit to Heaven” before around here, but if not, I highly recommend it. Today, it was prompted by a post of Tipsy’s touching on the relationship between God and the world.

That reminded me of Captain Stormfield’s arrival at Heaven. He had been racing a comet which took him fairly far off course, causing him to arrive at Heaven by the wrong gate; causing much consternation for the Heaven bureaucracy that has to make arrangements for an entire universe worth of arrivals.

I lit. I drifted up to a gate with a swarm of people, and when it was my turn the head clerk says, in a business-like way –

“Well, quick! Where are you from?”

“San Francisco,” says I.

“San Fran – WHAT?” says he.

“San Francisco.”

He scratched his head and looked puzzled, then he says –

“Is it a planet?”

By George, Peters, think of it! “PLANET?” says I; “it’s a city. And moreover, it’s one of the biggest and finest and – ”

“There, there!” says he, “no time here for conversation. We don’t deal in cities here. Where are you from in a GENERAL way?”

“Oh,” I says, “I beg your pardon. Put me down for California.”

I had him AGAIN, Peters! He puzzled a second, then he says, sharp and irritable –

“I don’t know any such planet – is it a constellation?”

“Oh, my goodness!” says I. “Constellation, says you? No – it’s a State.”

“Man, we don’t deal in States here. WILL you tell me where you are from IN GENERAL – AT LARGE, don’t you understand?”

“Oh, now I get your idea,” I says. “I’m from America, – the United
States of America.”

Peters, do you know I had him AGAIN? If I hadn’t I’m a clam! His face was as blank as a target after a militia shooting-match. He turned to an under clerk and says –

“Where is America? WHAT is America?”

The under clerk answered up prompt and says –

“There ain’t any such orb.”

“ORB?” says I. “Why, what are you talking about, young man? It ain’t an orb; it’s a country; it’s a continent. Columbus discovered it; I reckon likely you’ve heard of HIM, anyway. America – why, sir, America – ”

“Silence!” says the head clerk. “Once for all, where – are – you – FROM?”

“Well,” says I, “I don’t know anything more to say – unless I lump things, and just say I’m from the world.”

“Ah,” says he, brightening up, “now that’s something like! WHAT world?”

Peters, he had ME, that time. I looked at him, puzzled, he looked at me, worried. Then he burst out –

“Come, come, what world?”

Says I, “Why, THE world, of course.”

“THE world!” he says. “H’m! there’s billions of them! . . . Next!”

That meant for me to stand aside. I done so, and a sky-blue man with seven heads and only one leg hopped into my place. I took a walk. It just occurred to me, then, that all the myriads I had seen swarming to that gate, up to this time, were just like that creature. I tried to run across somebody I was acquainted with, but they were out of acquaintances of mine just then. So I thought the thing all over and finally sidled back there pretty meek and feeling rather stumped, as you may say.

“Well?” said the head clerk.

“Well, sir,” I says, pretty humble, “I don’t seem to make out which world it is I’m from. But you may know it from this – it’s the one the Saviour saved.”

He bent his head at the Name. Then he says, gently –

“The worlds He has saved are like to the gates of heaven in number – none can count them. What astronomical system is your world in? – perhaps that may assist.”

“It’s the one that has the sun in it – and the moon – and Mars” – he shook his head at each name – hadn’t ever heard of them, you see – “and Neptune – and Uranus – and Jupiter – ”

“Hold on!” says he – “hold on a minute! Jupiter . . . Jupiter . . . Seems to me we had a man from there eight or nine hundred years ago – but people from that system very seldom enter by this gate.” All of a sudden he begun to look me so straight in the eye that I thought he was going to bore through me. Then he says, very deliberate, “Did you come STRAIGHT HERE from your system?”

As with just about everything Mark Twain wrote, particularly – in my mind – his short stories, it’s worth a read. In this one, he pretty deftly skewers the cartoon version of heaven that seems to have currency among the rank and file, if not the deep thinkers.

How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria?

by 3 Comments

(The title doesn’t go all that well with the post; it’s just what popped to mind, and I felt compelled to use it.)

I am one of those who complains about a return to a new Gilded Age. Our economic policy is set up to return more to people as a reward for having money than it is to reward working. But, still, there is a problem — it may or may not be new. What do you do with a work force that is, in some respects, calcified?

When I say calcified, I’m thinking of the sort of worker that has worked for the same company for decades; has come to earn a decent wage with benefits — health benefits being of paramount importance these days — and has organized his life around these facts. His mortgage requires something like his current level of income; he is too old to be easily insurable on the private market but too young for Medicare. Perhaps his kids are ready to go to college. He’s good at his job, and he works hard; but he hasn’t done much else in a long time, and – here is the catch – there is diminishing demand for his company’s product.

Unions are of some use here — they can make sure that it’s really and truly a diminishing demand causing the problem and not simply a desire on the part of management to keep a greater part of the pie for itself.

But, let’s assume that times have changed and the company’s business model is no longer viable. What to do with that worker? Do we worry about “what’s fair?” Do we harden our hearts because, tough shit, he should have known better than to put his eggs in one basket?

I don’t really have good answers. Just some cheerful questions for Labor Day.

Memory Fades

by 8 Comments

Last night, I was watching Air Guitar Nation. (Demonstrating: a) I’m a wild man on Saturday Night; and b) I am a man of discerning television tastes.) It’s a story about organizing the first Air Guitar championships for the U.S. so that we’d have an entry in the International competition in Finland. Now, Air Guitar is not where I’d look for a conservative or liberal bias; but I was struck by a scene where one of the competitors was introducing himself as an American to some non-Americans and was immediately self-conscious about our nation’s reputation as warmongers and, more generally, being a bunch of jerks.

This struck me, not so much because of the significance of the scene itself – it was pretty short and not terribly consequential to the rest of the documentary – but because I’ve been watching some other shows from the mid-2000s lately, and it’s a recurring theme. I think it’s easy to forget just how bad our international reputation became under George W. Bush – we all remember things weren’t good; but I, at least, tend to forget just how diminished my sense of the United States’ place in the world had become during those years. If you were traveling in the world, and someone accused Americans of being Imperialist Warmongers, what would you say? “We had to invade Iraq because the Saudi and Egyptian members of al Quaeda hated us for our freedom?”

I suspect I won’t change any minds with a blog entry like this. Those who already agree will agree more. Those who don’t will likely either: a) Accuse me of Bush Derangement Syndrome; b) Sneer at the idea that we should be concerned about the opinion of foreigners and regard their disdain as a badge of pride; or c) Claim Obama is no different and is merely Bush’s third term because he hasn’t rolled things back nearly as much as we’d hope.

Anyway, it’s at least important to remember with some clarity what the Bush years were like, not to slag on his memory – but because the 2012 elections are coming up. Obama’s failures are clear and present. Bush’s are mellowing with age. But, when you look at the 2012 candidates, you have to ask, will they be more like Bush, more like Obama, or something entirely new? I look at Candidate Palin (to take an example since she was first up in my feed reader) and have no comfort that she’d learn anything from Bush’s policy mistakes:

She says “America is hurting” and at “a tipping point” due to “failed policies and incompetent leadership.”

The 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee says the crisis runs deeper than the fear of double-dip recession or “the shame of a credit downgrade.”

She says this crisis “will relentlessly rage until we do restore all that is free and good and right about America.”

“Restore” — in other words, go back. Go back to where? Well, I’ve been told that to read that as aspiring to pre-Civil Rights America is to unfairly malign the Tea Party; so, at the least, I have to assume she is referring to a pre-Obama Administration America.

Retributive Justice

by 5 Comments

Interesting column by Izzy Kalman at Mercator.net (h/t Tipsy) about American versus Scandinavian reactions to bad behavior and how it affects our anti-bullying efforts.

The basic idea is that our anti-bullying efforts mirror our respective approaches to criminal justice and juvenile delinquency. America has a more retributive approach whereas Norway has a more rehabilitative approach.

So why were his results so much better than those in America? The answer may just lie in the discrepancy between the way Scandinavia and America deal with criminals, as revealed in the aftermath of July 22.

Scandinavia comprises what are probably the most socially just countries in the world, with Norway possibly at the top of the list. Its low crime rate and high standard of living are the envy of the world. No wonder Middle Easterners want to live there despite the cold weather! It brings warring peoples to the peace table in Oslo. It steadfastly champions the underdog. Its neighbour Sweden tries to encourage world harmony by giving out Noble Peace Prizes. In the uncut version of Michael Moore’s movie Sicko, we are shown a Norwegian prison for violent criminals. But it looks like an island paradise. The guards do not carry guns and are indistinguishable from the inmates. The prisoners engage in gardening and other productive activities. The staff treat them like decent human beings in the expectation that that’s what they’ll become. And, as a result of their humanistic treatment, the recidivism rate of Norwegian criminals is far lower than that of the US.

Why does Norway limit prison terms to twenty-one years? Because it wants to save people, not destroy them. Imagine you are a murderer. For the coming two decades you will be confined to a place where you are treated with dignity despite your actions. The people in charge care about you and believe that your essential nature is good. Are you not likely to come out a very different-and better-person?

Now, I know there are plenty around here who would say that Norway is just different; such molly-coddling would never work in America. Perhaps they’d point to differences surrounding multi-culturalism, for example. But, knowing my fellow countrymen as I do, I don’t think the humane approach would be embraced even if it could be shown conclusively to result in significantly lower crime.

Retribution is justice! And, here’s the dirty secret: it feels better. It is more personally gratifying to get back at those who have wronged you than to turn the other cheek. It is emotionally difficult to watch a wrongdoer being treated nicely, even if that kind treatment results in the individual no longer doing wrong. Besides, we’re all just sinners in the hands of an angry God anyway; worms condemned to hell but for the grace given to an elect few. Why should we treat the evil among us with more compassion than our Creator dispenses to the non-elect?

Magistrate Wang Stepping Down

by 1 Comment

Sophia Voravong, reporting for the Lafayette Journal & Courier, has a story on Norris Wang’s planned retirement from his position as Tippecanoe County’s magistrate. I’ve come to appreciate Norris as a friend over the years, and he’ll be missed.

The story is absolutely correct about his unfailing politeness. The cases I had with him, as a general rule, were pretty routine; but they involved people – often times – with sub-optimal social graces who were unhappy to be where they were. If these folks were plain unreasonable, the Magistrate would lay down the law; but, barring that, he treated them with patience and respect. Those are awfully good lubricants for the machinery of our legal system.

Mitch Roob Returns to Private Sector. Some Say He Never Left

by 7 Comments

Mitch Roob, who you might remember from such public sector cautionary tales as “Privatizing Welfare Eligibility Determinations” and “Phantom Economic Development Jobs,” and “Indiana Doesn’t Do Studies, It Does Deals (Just Not Very Well)” is, at long last, leaving Indiana state government for the private sector. His long tenure in the Daniels administration raised questions about what video he might have of live boys or dead girls. Now, the world may never know.

Roob is leaving to cash in (one presumes) with “WoundVision” which is either a healthcare company or a producer of snuff films.

I dreamed I saw Mitch Roob last night,
In private business like you or me
Says I, “But Mitch, you’re seven years in the government,”
“I never was,” says he.
“I never was,” says he.

“In Indianapolis, Mitch,” says I to him,
Him standing by my bed,
“They said you were workin’ for the FSSA,”
Says Mitch, “But I ain’t a public servant,”
Says Mitch, “But I ain’t a public servant.”

“The Indiana Economic Development Corporation, Mitch,
They paid you, Mitch,” says I.
“Takes more than a government paycheck to buy a man,”
Says Mitch, “I didn’t serve,”
Says Mitch, “I didn’t serve.”

And standing there as big as life
And smiling with his eyes
Says Mitch, “What they forgot to buy
Went on to privatize,
Went on to privatize.”

Proper v. Pragmatic: The Race to the South Pole

by 4 Comments

We’re coming on a hundred years since the race to the South Pole between Roald Amundsen and Robert Falcon Scott. Caroline Alexander, writing for the National Geographic, has a worthwhile article on Amundsen. (h/t Barry).

I’m sure it’s overblown because it makes such a compelling narrative, but I like reading about the distinctions between Amundsen and Scott’s approach which many have ascribed to their respective national characters. The English value the heroic struggle of the amateur. The Norwegians the pragmatic success of the professional. For Amundsen, the goal is getting to the pole in the most efficient manner possible. For Scott, honorable failure is preferable to succeeding in the wrong way.

I tend to be a little skeptical of this because I don’t know that Scott was necessarily aware of a more efficient manner of reaching his goal. But, a lot has been made of Scott’s trudging through the ice and snow with ponies as opposed to Amundsen’s skiing across the terrain with dogs pulling sleds. Amundsen is particularly maligned for coldly calculating the dogs necessary to pull the weight of supplies and then killing the dogs and using them for food as the other supplies were consumed.

Amundsen’s approach was clearly more successful. He got to the pole first and without major incident. Scott slogged his way through his “first rate tragedy” only to find that Amundsen had beat him. Then, he slogged most of the way back only to run out of supplies and get pinned down by a blizzard, just 11 miles from a supply depot, and die.

Afterward, Scott’s reputation was posthumously elevated to that of a national hero. Amundsen lived on, financially strapped and increasingly embittered.

A side-note about Amundsen that I found interesting in Ms. Alexander’s article:

[I]n May 1928, when Nobile’s airship went missing over the Arctic, Amundsen hastened to join the multinational rescue effort, pushing friends to finance a rescue plane. He was poised to get married, and his determination to be involved suggests that, as an essentially solitary man, he was running from this commitment.

The reason I took particular note of this was because I am currently reading King Leopold’s Ghost by Adam Hochschild which describes Henry Morgan Stanley’s Congo expeditions. Hochschild suggests that Stanley’s engagement to Alice Pike took place immediately before his departure on a multi-year expedition because of his essential fear of women. (She got married to someone else while he was away.)

Both Sides Do It

by 13 Comments

One of the standard tropes in political commentary is that “both sides do it” false equivalency. If you don’t see it, then you’re partisan. Part of the proof of this is that you never see that “your” side is as bad as the “other” side. Of course, that’s a chicken and egg issue. One would think you’d pick the side that you perceive as behaving itself more.

A problem is that there is very little in the way of indisputable objective criteria to judge who is behaving worse. If you could just put the bullshit on a scale at the end of a political campaign and give the office to the person that comes out lightest; we wouldn’t have this problem. Journalists, who we many times want to serve as referee, are wary of serving this function. They know they are in for a world of abuse from the side that doesn’t get the call. As the Boss said, they end up cringing like a dog that’s been beat too much and spend half their life just covering up. In other words, we get “he said, she said” faux balance. “Candidate Smith says the sky is made of bees. Candidate Jones disagrees.”

False equivalency encourages abuse. If you’re going to get blamed just the same as the other guy, no matter what you do; what’s your incentive for restraint? If you’re trying to beat up the other guy, and he’s trying to kill you; you’re going to lose. With no referee to call foul, you might as well bring your AK-47 into the ring. After all, the other guy is cheating too; he’s coming at you with a folding chair.

Head for the Fainting Couches!

by 43 Comments

Rep. Andre Carson said that the Tea Party is “protecting its millionaire and oil company friends while gutting critical services that they know protect the livelihood of African-Americans, as well as Latinos and other disadvantaged minorities.”

“This is the effort that we’re seeing of Jim Crow,” Carson said. “Some of these folks in Congress right now would love to see us as second-class citizens.”

“Some of them in Congress right now of this Tea Party movement would love to see you and me … hanging on a tree.”

Folks who likely never cared much for Rep. Carson in the first place are, pretty much on cue, hitting the ceiling, clutching their pearls, getting the vapors, and heading for the fainting couches.

Rep. Carson is alluding to the days of Jim Crow when, like it or not, lynching was a problem. Now, let’s start here: do Tea Partiers want to lynch black people? There might be a couple, but that’s probably about it.

So why might the allusion occur to Rep. Carson? Because he has an irrational need to tell lies about the Tea Party? I doubt it. I think it starts here: “We need to take our country back.”

Yet the speech that opened the Nashville event yesterday, an address greeted with whoops and cheers from the mainly white audience, reflects a movement that also appears to have a less attractive side to it.

Tom Tancredo, a former Republican congressman who ran for president in 2008 on an anti-illegal immigration platform, said of the voters who elected Mr Obama: “They could not even spell the word ‘vote’ or say it in English and they put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House — Barack Hussein Obama!”

Decrying America’s multiculturalism, Mr Tancredo said that Republicans and Democrats had voted for a black man because they felt they had to. To a standing ovation, he shouted: “We really do have a culture to pass on to our children: it’s based on Judaeo-Christian values.”

“This is our country,” he declared. “Let’s take it back!” He added, to applause: “Cultures are not the same. Some are better. Ours is best!” The crowd, some wearing recently purchased T-shirts saying “Keep the change — I’ll keep my FREEDOM my GUNS and my MONEY”, loved it.

This is not isolated craziness from Tom Tancredo. “We need to take our country back” has been a drum beat. The question “back from whom” is rarely asked. But, President Obama is a committed socialist in the same universe where Tea Partiers are lynching black people. Somehow the socialism accusation doesn’t prompt the blood boiling pearl clutching that these Jim Crow allegations from Rep. Carson have.

Now, what must this “take the country back” business sound like to the part of the American population from whom the Tea Party wants to take the country back? What does “back” mean to them in historical terms? In some cases it’s lynching; in a lot of cases it’s a deprivation of civil rights.

But, when Matt Tully’s editors tell him to drop everything and go report on Rep. Carson’s “hanging from trees” comments; I’ll bet they’re not looking for a nuanced discussion. They’re looking for a story on how Rep. Carson has hurt the feelings of folks like Sen. Banks who is outraged and offended and, consequently, demanding an apology.

Perhaps it’s because I’m on the other side of the fence on (just to take an example — not seeking to describe the universe of topics where political rhetoric gets overheated) reproductive rights, but I don’t see this kind of push for political food-fight coverage every time a pro-life lawmaker refers to “baby killing.” In part, I think that’s because the Left doesn’t do outrage and taking offense nearly as effectively.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, all of this unpleasantness has left me quite unsettled.

Gun Ban Lawsuit

by 7 Comments

According to Lindsay Machak, writing for the Northwest Indiana Times, a lawsuit has been filed against the City of Hammond. Part of this previous year’s assault on local government by the Indiana General Assembly was a statute that encourages lawsuits by gun owners.

The plaintiffs are suing over a city gun ordinance that is apparently on the books but which has not been enforced.
IC 35-47-11.1-5 which creates standing for a citizen to file a lawsuit provides:

A person adversely affected by an ordinance, a measure, an enactment, a rule, or a policy adopted or enforced by a political subdivision that violates this chapter may file an action in a court[.]

This section became effective July 1, 2011. The first hurdle will be to establish that the ordinance was adopted or enforced after that date. They might argue that merely by having a statute remain on the books after July 1, 2011, a municipality violates the statute and they are adversely affected by it. But, I don’t know that that interpretation is entirely clear.

In any event, it’s a headache for the city. If they lose, the statute provides for attorney’s fees and liquidated damages in the amount of three times their attorney’s fees. So, the incentive for the plaintiff is to litigate as much as possible to increase the attorney fees and thereby increase the multiplier for their damage calculation. The corresponding incentive for the municipality is to capitulate as quickly as possible; pretty much regardless of the strength of their legal case.