A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

Masson's Blog

The Brothers Karamazov

by 21 Comments

My current literary effort is to re-read The Brother’s Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Of the literary classics I had to read in high school, this one was probably my favorite. However, it’s not light reading, so I have picked it up a number of times since then without much success. This time, I’m about 300 pages in, so maybe I’ll finish it. I’m happy it was assigned in high school, but like so many other books of this caliber, a lot of it was wasted on a 17 year old.

I am, however, at a point in the book that decidedly was not wasted on me when I was a kid. One of the characters, Ivan, spoke about how the young have to wrestle with the great, momentous issues — the existence of God, the meaning of life, etc. Once you’ve aged, it’s apparently easier to focus on the more mundane problems of making things work here on earth. In the book, I am in the middle of Ivan’s lunch conversation with his brother Alyosha: The Grand Inquisitor and the conversation leading up to that conversation. The Grand Inquisitor is a story that Ivan shares with Alyosha about Jesus coming back to earth, briefly, much to the consternation of The Grand Inquisitor at the height of the Spanish Inquisition.

During the conversation leading up to The Grand Inquisitor, Ivan shares some items in a catalog of horror stories he has collected wherein adults torture innocent children. He describes a lord who sets a pack of hunting dogs on an eight year old because the boy accidentally hurt the lord’s favorite hunting dog. He describes rampaging Turks who like to torture children in front of their parents. And, he describes “disciplinarian” parents who beat their daughter half to death, then throw her in the outhouse to cry it out, crying in particular to “sweet, gentle Jesus.” Ivan then goes on to posit that, maybe in the end God’s plan will become evident to all. Everybody will be in harmony and will finally understand why all the pain was necessary. Consequently, all will be forgiven. The mother of the boy killed by the Lord’s hounds will forgive the Lord, etc.

But, Ivan asks Alyosha (his spiritual brother), if Alyosha was creating a world where all could be perfect, but first Alyosha would have to torture the girl and allow her to cry out in the stinking, freezing outhouse to sweet, gentle Jesus, could he possibly use the girl’s tears as the foundation to his master plan? Alyosha allows as how he could not do it.

The subject of original sin comes up somewhere during this discussion. And, I recall reading the book in high school, becoming even more pissed off at the theologians who conjured up original sin as justification for the existence of the suffering of innocents and an excuse for them to go to hell absent proper clerical intervention.

Next up, as I mentioned, is The Grand Inquisitor. Perhaps I will have more to say on that later. But, generally, it tells a story of the Grand Inquisitor lecturing Christ for his refusal of the Devil and his three temptations in the desert – the temptation to turn stones into bread, the temptation to cast Himself from the Temple and be saved by the angels, and the temptation to rule over all the kingdoms of the world. By giving people freedom instead of the various types of security offered by these things, Christ has chosen poorly. Fortunately, in the opinion of the Inquisitor, the Church has come along and provided the appropriate types of security. For the moment, it occurs to me that we have recently seen the temptation of people to reject freedom in favor of the illusion of security under “strong” leadership. This is not a new thing. Freedom is hard.

A last concept I’ll mention from the book is Fyodor Karamazov’s statement that he never hated anybody for what they had done to him. He always hated them for something outrageous he himself had done to them. Once he had done something to them of which he was ashamed, he’d make up reasons to hate them and continue to treat them horribly.

IN-04: Ackerson campaign raises $134,000 for the period

by Leave a Comment

It looks like Nels Ackerson is for real in his challenge against Steve Buyer. For the campaign period ending September 30, 2007, the Ackerson campaign raised $134,000. According to the campaign, “this figure sets a new Indiana record for individual contributions made to a challenger, Democrat or Republican, in their first reporting period.”

Campaign manager Jim Hurst said, “Contributions have ranged from $5 to $2300, the legal maximum.” Hurst also said, “Some contributors have already given to both the primary and general election campaigns.” The campaign will file its report with the Federal Election Committee before the October 15th deadline, and details will be public after that time.

This number apparently reflects only individual contributions and includes no money from political party organizations or political action committees.

Wanna contribute?

Call for Resumes

by Leave a Comment

My law firm, Hoffman, Luhman, and Masson, PC is in need of an associate. Currently, we are a small, two-person law firm. The firm and its predecessor firms have been operating in Lafayette, Indiana for the past fifty years. We are a general purpose law firm but in the recent past have not done much if any criminal or family law. At the moment, most of our work comes from representing Tippecanoe County, civil collections, and insurance defense. We also do a reasonable number of wills and estates and handle a variety of other civil matters.

The ideal candidate would either have roots in Lafayette or otherwise be inclined to spend quite a while in the area. Our founder, Fred Hoffman, was a gentleman and a lawyer; collegial but effective, intelligent with a sense of humor and, above all, integrity. The rest of the firm has tried to follow suit. We would like to find a lawyer who fits in with this style of practice.

If interested, please send resumes prior to November 15, 2007 to:

Douglas J. Masson
Hoffman, Luhman & Masson, PC
P.O. Box 99
Lafayette, Indiana 47902

If you know anyone who is interested, please pass this along.

Date: October 8, 2007.

Filed Under: Law

Evansville Courier Press: Bush not credible on SCHIP veto

by 1 Comment

This opinion by the Evansville Courier Press seems to get it about right:

If President Bush had a history of opposing big government and big spending, his choice of a child health insurance bill for only the fourth veto of his presidency might be more understandable.

But he has calmly presided over the largest increase in spending and the creation of the largest government entitlement — prescription drugs — since the Great Society.

. . .

As for competing with private insurance, as Bush charges, the president greatly overestimates the availability and affordability of purely private insurance.

The opinion goes on to note some of the problems with the legislation, but those problems seem to have precious little to do with Bush’s reasons for vetoing the bill. We can spend billions per week and get nothing in return in Iraq, but God forbid we spend the money on sick kids. (Actually, I say “the money” as if we have it. We don’t. We’re borrowing it from great market economies like China. In fact, these kids are going to be paying the tab for today’s expenditures, they might as well get some of the benefits.)

Lesley Stedman Weidenbener on allocating fault for property taxes

by Leave a Comment

Lesley Stedman Weidenbener has a column in the Louisville Courier Journal which I think unduly minimizes the fault state legislators bear for the current property tax problems. She bemoans the ignorance of the electorate shown by a recent Chamber of Commerce poll. This is justified to some degree — folks don’t seem to know that property taxes get spent almost entirely at the local level. But, I think she is wrong where she seems to place most of the blame for the current property tax increases on local officials. She does this somewhat indirectly, by saying that she doesn’t absolve the state of all blame which seems to indicate she absolves them of most of the blame.

But, the fact is that increases in local spending accounts for only 6% of the 24% average increases. Ms. Wedenbener has this paragraph in her column:

I don’t mean to absolve the state of any role. After all, lawmakers have made decisions recently — including the elimination of the inventory tax and the creation of a floating cap on property tax relief payments — that have affected homeowners’ bills, too.

These are two of the three main causes of the recent property tax spike. As I’ve mentioned here before, the spike can be mostly explained by:

1. Caps on the Property Tax Replacement Credit and Homestead Credit — These were State actions that were done to allow the State to balance its own budget; in effect, the State balanced its budget on the backs of local government.

2. Elimination of the inventory tax — An action by the State that shifted the tax burden from inventory tax payers to property tax payers.

3. Trending — Part of the State’s implementation of a State court’s 1998 decision that the State’s method of taxation was unconstitutional.

The fact is that the General Assembly and the Governor (primarily through the Department of Local Government Finance) are heavily involved in micromanaging the taxing authority of local government and, consequently, bear most of the blame in the recent property tax increases.

So, Ms. Weidenbener is right when she says:

But no solution will likely work unless Hoosiers get a better understanding of the issues, which means everybody involved has a little educating to do.

I’m just happy she gave me an opportunity to do a little educating.

Speaking of Ms. Weidenbener, she has an excellent article on the subject of retirements in the General Assembly and their potential to shift the balance of power from Democrats to Republicans. There are apparently 5 Democrats who aren’t going to run for re-election and one Republican. The Republican, Matt Whetstone, comes from an area that voted about 70% Republican and, therefore, his seat isn’t likely to shift parties. Some of the Democratic retirements leave more vulnerable seats — particularly Dave Crooks seat in Daviess County and Joe Micon’s seat in Tippecanoe County. Also retiring are Jerry Denbo (probably – not yet formally announced) out of French Lick, and Bob Kuzman from French Lick. In addition, up in Portage, Duane Cheney resigned and, his replacement, Jack Clem, passed away recently.

John Cole on David Brooks on the Decline of the Republicans

by 2 Comments

John Cole has a good post on a column written by David Brooks on the recent troubles of the Republican Party.

Brooks suggests that the Republicans have lost their way because they “have made ideological choices that offend conservatism’s Burkean roots.” Choices that reflect the wishes of “creedal conservatives” have offended the sensibilities of Midwestern, suburban, and business conservatives who care “about order, prudence and balanced budgets more than transformational leadership and perpetual tax cuts.”

Cole calls this hogwash. He cites the overt the top reaction of right-wing bloggers to Obama’s statement that he prefers talking to people about his patriotism over wearing a flag-pin on his lapel. Cole suggests that people are tired of being associated with these “drooling retards.”

Like me. It had nothing to do with Burke, and everything to do with what the party had become. A bunch of bedwetting, loudmouth, corrupt, hypocritical, and incompetent boobs with a mean streak a mile long and no sense of fair play or proportion.

Seriously- what does the current Republican party stand for? Permanent war, fear, the nanny state, big spending, torture, execution on demand, complete paranoia regarding the media, control over your body, denial of evolution and outright rejection of science, AND ZOMG THEY ARE GONNA MAKE US WEAR BURKHAS, all the while demanding that in order to be a good American I have to spend most of every damned day condemning half my fellow Americans as terrorist appeasers.

And also, you know, the corruption.

But I think they’re both right. Time after time, I’ve seen Republicans on the national level appeal to emotion over reason. They don’t have a monopoly on this tactic, of course. A campaign is going to lose if it is appealing exclusively to the rationality of the electorate and the other side is stoking the electorate’s lizard brain. But, when you start disdaining reality-based policies because they offend emotionally-appealing dogma, you’ve gone off the rails. You will no longer be very appealing to those voters who simply want an opportunity to make a profit in an orderly society. Furthermore, self-appointed watch-dogs of ideological purity have a tendency to get ugly when there is no objective reality to keep them in check.

I suspect the Republicans’ time in the wilderness this time out will be especially ugly. But, eventually they’ll regroup — my preference would be as economic conservatives and social libertarians, but I’m not holding my breath — and the more unchecked power the Democrats have, the more corrupt they will become, and the tide will turn once again.

The Tribe

by 2 Comments

I don’t get to claim I’m a die hard Indians fan. I watch the Major League Baseball standings through the season, but that’s about the extent of my involvement. I only watch the Indians if they make the playoffs. So, I am hardly the equal of those who follow the team closely season-in and season-out, good times and bad. I have several friends of this variety which is why I make this disclosure.

That out of the way, how about those Indians? Last night’s victory over the Yankees was practically Biblical. After 7 mostly frustrating innings where the Indians left a small reservation stranded on base, the midges of Lake Erie descended on Jacobs Field like some kind of plague. They disrupted the formidable Yankee pitcher, Joba Chamberlain, enough that Grady Sizemore was able to score after Chamberlain threw a wild pitch.

The midges crawling around on Chamberlain’s neck gave me the creepy-crawlies. *Shudder.* But, if that’s what it takes for an Indians win, I’ll take it.

Ron Paul

by 22 Comments

So, why not Ron Paul for the Republicans? I’ll fully admit that I have not followed the GOP nomination process because I’m not all that interested. My vote for President is almost certainly going to a Democrat in 2008 – for the simple reason that the Bush administration has made such a colossal mess that it’s going to take someone from a different party to clean out the stables, even a little bit.

That disclosure notwithstanding, why isn’t Ron Paul regarded as a top tier candidate? It’s purely anecdotal, but I’ve seen more Ron Paul sites in my neck of the woods than any other Presidential candidates. (Which means, maybe 5 – just not a lot of them up at this point.) From what I’ve read, he’s pretty much a paleo-conservative. He’s a small government kind of guy except when it comes to abortion. He’s anti-immigration, anti-war, and apparently pretty popular on the Internet.

Maybe he’s akin to a Howard Dean of the right – speaking truths that are inconvenient to the Republican establishment. I don’t really see what the Republican front-runners have to offer that Paul doesn’t. Giuliani seems a bit on the fascist side for my tastes (and presumably for anyone who favors limited government) and has all of those inconvenient personal difficulties for someone who wants to take up the mantle of the Family Values Party. Fred Thompson is coming out of the gates looking like he’s asleep at the switch. Mitt Romney has his finger firmly planted in the wind to see which way it’s blowing, and for the Religious Right, I have to think the Mormon thing doesn’t sit especially well.

I don’t know, maybe those who are better informed on the Republican Presidency can provide better information about the dynamics at play here.

ACLU v. NSA

by 3 Comments

The title pretty much says it all — Civil Liberties versus National Security (Ben Franklin, I believe, recommended the former), but for a little light reading you might enjoy the American Civil Liberties Union petition for certiorari (pdf) against the National Security Agency.

Questions presented:

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that plaintiffs who have been injured because of government surveillance are precluded from challenging the lawfulness of that surveillance if the government refuses to disclose whether plaintiffs communications have been intercepted.

2. Whether the President possess the authority under Article II of the Constitution to engage in intelligence surveillance within the United States that Congress has expressly prohibited.