innocent until proven muslim

shorter gary welsh: when a muslim shoots people, it's terrorism. when a white christian tries to shoot someone, it's understandable. ¶

alternate south carolina license plates

now that the "believe" license plate has been ruled unconstitutional, south carolina's going to need some new license plate designs!

instead of this:



try one of these:

these ideas are free for south carolina to use! though some licensing fees may be required. if you have an idea, leave a comment and share it! ¶

south carolina's "i believe" plate unconstitutional

via thestate.com:

A federal judge has ruled unconstitutional a Christian "I Believe" vehicle license tag with the image of a cross authorized last year by the S.C. General Assembly.

"The 'I Believe' Act's primary effect is to promote a specific religion, Christianity," U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie wrote in a decision released Tuesday.

State laws promoting one religion over others have been illegal in the United States since the nation's founding, Currie wrote.

Currie also focused on the role played by Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, who originally pushed for the Christian tag after a move to create a similar "I Believe" tag failed in Florida.

"Such a law amounts to state endorsement not only of religion in general, but of a specific sect in particular," Currie wrote.

"Whether motivated by sincerely held Christian beliefs or an effort to purchase political capital with religious coin, the result is the same," she wrote. "The statute is clearly unconstitutional and defense of its implementation has embroiled the state in unnecessary (and expensive) litigation."

The tag in question would have featured a large cross against a stained glass window and the words: "I Believe." No tags had been issued. A state Department of Motor Vehicles spokesman said the department will abide by the judge's decision.

open and shut, really. when you look at the plate's design, it's obviously intended to promote christianity and no other religion... which is blatantly unconstitutional. the only surprise is that anyone thought they could get away with it (unless they didn't, and the whole point was to energize the base when the inevitable happened).

the controversial "in god we trust" plate sold in indiana and elsewhere has so far escaped a similar fate, because while it is a state endorsement of theistic religion, it's not blatantly pro-christian at the expense of other religions. ¶

politicizing the fort hood tragedy

by now, you've surely heard about yesterday's tragic shootings at fort hood, which left at least 13 dead and 30 wounded.

seasoned news watchers know to treat initial reports with skepticism during events like this, as confusion and misinformation abound, particularly in the first few hours. indeed, we were initially told that the alleged shooter, major nidal malik hasan, had been killed, but it turns out that he's alive... a pretty significant detail.

but right-wingers like gary welsh couldn't wait until all the information was in, instead seizing on the alleged shooter's muslim heritage to brand him a terrorist. never mind that hasan was a natural-born US citizen who was well-respected by the soldiers he treated for PTSD and other problems. never mind that the FBI has specifically ruled out terrorism as a motive. no, the fact that nasam was a muslim means he must be a terrorist.

of course, impugning people's integrity is what gary always does. it's his schtick. after state rep ed delaney was brutally attacked, gary suggested delaney was partly to blame in his own pistol-whipping. before that, he spent months telling us how proponents of the wishard referendum are horrible, deceitful people. (it was so bad that matt tully called him out on it, though not by name. in response, gary claimed that tully has no integrity.) before that, he was going on at length about how president obama is a deceitful noncitizen muslim who enjoys coked-up gay sex on the DL. before that, he vilified andré carson, and before that, bart peterson, julia carson, the clintons... the list goes on and on. (who can forget when gary accused steph mineart and others of being "extremists on the issue of fighting the war on terrorism"?)

so i'm not surprised that people like gary would rush to politicize this tragedy. that's what people like him do. but i am disgusted. and i'm even tempted to say it's the worst thing he's ever written... but when someone has a track record as egregious as gary, how can you pick? ¶

what's a fair wage for a nonprofit CEO?

for some reason, i read (or i should say skim) paul ogden's blog. ogden is a local conservative attorney, and his blog reads a lot like advance indiana, only with less seething resentment and fewer amusing typos.

lately, ogden has been on a crusade against local nonprofits. one of his regular complaints is that they all pay their executives too much (he's posted about it six times in just the past two months). this is a puzzling attitude coming from a conservative, but he apparently believes that "nonprofit" means "everyone works for peanuts, if not free." of course, it doesn't work like that. as any conservative should know, if you want talent, you have to pay for it. $100,000 or more might sound like a lot... until you realize that most of them could earn way more in the private sector.

i mocked him for this last month, pointing him to a CEO compensation study by charity navigator that shows that most of the salaries he's so up-in-arms over are perfectly reasonable salaries for that sector. but though he did show up in the comments to call me a hypocrite, he clearly never read the report. so let's look at the report in more depth, shall we? let's start with the introduction:

Charity Navigator has completed its fifth annual CEO Compensation Study. This year's study examined the compensation practices at 5,448 mid to large sized U.S. based charities that depend on support from the public. Our analysis revealed that the top leaders of these charities earn an average salary of $158,0752 representing a pay raise of 6.1% over the previous year studied.

We know from the conversations taking place in the comment section of our charity ratings pages that many donors will be appalled by this figure. They believe that charity leaders should all but work for free. But these well-meaning donors fail to consider that these CEOs are running multi-million dollar operations that endeavor to change the world. Leading one of these charities requires an individual that possesses an understanding of the issues that are unique to the charity's mission as well as business and management expertise similar to that required of for-profit CEOs. Attracting and retaining that type of talent requires a certain level of compensation. While there are nonprofit salaries that we would all agree are out-of-line, it is important for donors to come to terms with charity executives earning a fair wage – which is roughly $160,000 according to our research.

yes, a six-figure salary is perfectly reasonable for someone with the skills to run a multi-million-dollar organization. of course, it depends on geographical location: the report finds that compensation in the midwest is below average ($148,781), and that average compensation here in indianapolis is $126,204.

compensation also varies depending on the nonprofit's charitable mission. CEOs in education and the arts tend to earn a lot more; executives for environmental, human services, or religious-based organizations tend to earn less. the size of the organization also matters, as you might imagine: CEOs at larger charities earn more.

• Above Average Pay: Organizations with total expenses greater than $13.5 million ($286,760)
• Below Average Pay: Charities with total expenses under $3.5 million ($90,747) as well as those between $3.5 and $13.5 million ($149,306)

[...] These figures demonstrate that as the size, and thus the complexities of running a nonprofit increase, so does the salary of the institution's top executive so much so that if we probe deeper into the top tier of charities (by size), we see even larger salaries. A look at organizations with total expenses between $50 and $100 million pay their CEOs on average $378,026 and organizations with total expenses of $100 million or more pay their CEOs on average $462,037.

to be sure, some nonprofit CEOs are overpaid, and the report gives a few examples. (the head of the university of delaware gets $2,377,100!) but the $80k earned by the director of the peace center, which ogden complained about today, is actually below the national average for a charity that size. and that's just one of the nonprofits paul has unfairly maligned.

running a large organization is is hard work, and to get people with the skills and knowledge to do the work properly, you have to pay them what they're worth. this isn't to say that there aren't some shady nonprofits out there—steve buyer's frontier foundation comes to mind—but you can't judge an organization merely on what it pays its executives. as the report says, "salaries really should be examined in the context of the charity's overall performance."

update: he's still at it, now maligning goodwill of central indiana. funny how an org whose mission involves giving people jobs would spend a lot of money on paying its employees, isn't it?

update: still writing nonsense about local charities. he writes "This morning I heard a radio broadcaster bragging about Irsay's charitable offer of donating $1 to United Way for ever person who attended the game last night. That amounts to a whole $67,476. Once the United Way's administrators take their cuts for their six figure salaries, there might be $476 left over to be distributed to actual charities." had he bothered to check, he'd see that only 5.8% of UWCI's budget goes to administrative expenses, whereas 85.7% goes to program expenses. of course, his argument isn't about facts. ¶

why obama won the nobel

i must confess that my first reaction upon hearing that president obama won the nobel peace prize is that this is great news, if only because it will drive the obama-haters completely bonkers. (i suspect the main reason gary welsh doesn't have a seething rant up about this is because he's too enraged to form sentences.) but on reflection, the decision makes a lot of sense.

the US is the most powerful country in the world (militarily if not economically), and less than a year ago our president was a narcissistic warmonger who continuously thumbed his nose at the rest of the world because he believed he was personally chosen by god. president obama has made a point of turning things around, of re-engaging with the rest of the world. this, in and of itself, is no small accomplishment.

but, as obama himself noted in his remarks this morning, this nobel prize isn't so much about what he's accomplished, but about what he—and the world—hopes to accomplish. it's about hope—hope that, under obama's leadership, we can turn things around after eight long years in the wilderness. yes, the award is a repudiation of bush's policies, but it's more than that—it's the world's way of saying, "we're with you, obama! don't let us down!"

obama's challenge now is to live up to the honor, to prove that he deserves it. in his first months in office, he's made some strong steps in the right direction, but also some missteps. the challenges he faces are extremely difficult, but i hope he can live up to them over the next three-to-seven years. ¶

brownie peanut butter cups

i discovered these beauties at the bake sale at the st joan of arc french market, and was struck not only by their deliciousness but also by their simplicity. i was immediately determined to re-create them at home. (the only reason it took three weeks to do so was because i had to buy a mini-muffin pan first.)

you will need:
1-2 mini-muffin baking pans (like this one)
mini-muffin papers (optional)
~48 miniature peanut butter cups
1 batch brownie batter

1. make your favorite brownie batter. i like to use a variation of this recipe because it uses cocoa instead of baking chocolate (my variation only uses 3 eggs and 1 cup of flour, so they'll be chewy and moist rather than cakelike). but any recipe should work, as would a box brownie mix.


2. put the muffin papers in the pan and drop a small amount of batter into each one—no more than 2/3 or so full.


3. open the peanut butter cups and sink them into the batter. press them down so the batter comes at least most of the way to the top of the peanut butter cup.


4. bake at the temperate directed, but take them out early because they will bake much faster than in a pan. i took mine out after 15 minutes (the brownies normally take 20-30) and even then my wife thought i should've taken them out earlier.

as i said before, i discovered these at a bake sale, so i don't know the name of the person who baked the ones that i bought, or where they got the idea. whoever you are, anonymous bake sale contributor, thank you! i suspect i'll be making these a lot in the future. ¶

press WIN

i've mentioned before that i've been moving away from abstract art & illustration toward more representational works. my first representational collages were a series of landscapes. but the problem with those is that they're all 30"x20"—too large to scan.

so lately i've been working on collages that are a bit smaller. recently i made this boombox collage to slap on the cover of a demo cd i was putting together, and when people seemed to like it, i submitted it to threadless. the result was my highest-scoring threadless submission to date. so now i'm kicking it up another notch with this bad boy:

this is best viewed large so you can see the detail work on the keyboard.

this is up for voting now on threadless, so if you have a threadless login, please take a minute to vote (and if you don't have a login, please consider signing up for one and voting):

this is probably the best work i've submitted to threadless and i expect it to earn my highest score ever. as for whether that translates to the design getting printed, only time will tell. ¶

there was a great gnashing of teeth

shorter voter ID proponents:

shorter gary welsh: the court of appeals decision was wrong because the judges are all democrats.

shorter governor mitch daniels: how dare these judges defy me? fie, fie upon them! they'll rue the day they ruled against me! behold, for my ad hominem attacks are mighty indeed!

shorter indy star editorial board: if the stupid court of appeals really wants to obey the state constitution, then fine, we'll make absentee voters show ID. but don't blame us when little old ladies get disenfranchised!

shorter frugal hoosiers: the US supreme court already upheld this law, so who cares if it violates the state constitution?

shorter attorney general greg zoeller: we're going to appeal this decision, but it doesn't really matter because we have no intention of obeying the court order, anyway.


note: there's one common element between all of these: not one of them even attempts to explain why the ruling was wrong on its merits. this is because the ruling is so simple and straightforward that they can't argue on its merits.

update: oops, i spoke too soon. here's gary's take, which boils down to saying that absentee voters were intentionally allowed to vote without showing ID so as not to disenfranchise senior citizens and the disabled. that's all well and good... but seniors and the disabled aren't the only people who vote absentee.

basically, the law creates two classes of voters—in-person and by-mail—and requires the former but not the latter to show ID. doing this violates the state constitution. gary's argument conveniently ignores this basic fact. ¶

voter ID law violates indiana constitution

so says the indiana court of appeals (pdf link):

here is perhaps the most important part of the decision:

The crux of the League's contention is that mail-in voters are not required by law to execute an affidavit regarding their identity, but in-person voters are required to produce a government issued photo identification card which contains an expiration date. The League directs our attention to our supreme court's decision in Horseman v. Keller, 841 N.E.2d 164 (Ind. 2006). In Horseman, the trial court declared Indiana Code section 3-12-1-13 unconstitutional because it did not allow mailed-in absentee ballots lacking two sets of clerks' initials to be counted in a recount although ballots cast in-person, but lacking two sets of clerks‟ initials, could be counted in the recount. Our supreme court declared to the contrary that the statute was constitutional, because inherent differences make mailed-in ballots more susceptible to improper influences or fraud, and, therefore, “it is reasonable that the legislature believed it in the interest of Indiana voters to more stringently govern absentee balloting.” Id. at 173.10 Because of this conclusion, the League contends that it is irrational for our legislature to require identification of in-person voters but not require an affidavit affirming the identity of mail-in voters. We agree.

If it is reasonable to "more stringently govern absentee balloting," then it follows that a statute that imposes a less stringent requirement for absentee voters than for those voting in person would not be reasonable. This is what the Voter I.D. law does.

apparently, the voter ID statute also stated that "residents of state licensed care facilities which also happen to be polling places" don't need to show ID. the court concluded that this is unfair and violates the Equal Priveleges and Communities clause.

We have no indication from our supreme court that the legal proposition requiring that the regulation of electors and elections be reasonable, uniform, and impartial has been subsumed by the two-prong Section 23 analysis, and, therefore, we must consider it to be a viable independent analysis from Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause in spite of the fact that both address uniformity. Indeed, Section 23 analysis requires only that those similarly situated be treated uniformly once a class is carved out by our legislature, but we find no such limitation in Morris, Simmons, or Blue. All qualified voters must be treated uniformly and impartially. We fail to see how the Voter I.D. Law's exception of those residing in state licensed care facilities, which happen to also be a polling place, 29 would be a uniform or impartial regulation. Furthermore, the Voter I.D. Law treats in-person voters disparate from mail-in voters, conferring partial treatment upon mail-in voters.

It seems that the inconsistent and impartial treatment favoring voters who reside at state care facilities which also happen to be polling places could be excised from the Voter I.D. Law without destroying the primary objectives of the Law. However, the same cannot be said for the inconsistent and partial treatment favoring absentee voters who choose to mail their votes without destroying the opportunity for mailing votes. There may be different ways in which the inconsistent and partial treatment of the Voter I.D. Law could be cured, but it is not our task to form suggestions for legislation. See State ex rel. Indiana State Bd. of Finance v. Marion County Superior, 272 Ind. 47, 52, 396 N.E.2d 340, 344 (1979) ("Our constitution is clear that the judicial department cannot exercise any of the functions of either the legislative department or executive . . . ."). Therefore, we must reverse and remand, with instructions to the trial court that it enter an order declaring the Voter I.D. Law void.

update: doug has more, as does indiana law blog. ¶

you don't get what you don't pay for

shorter paul k ogden: did you know that CEOs at nonprofits actually get paid? it's outrageous! you'd think that multi-million-dollar organizations like the united way of central indiana would have no trouble finding talented executives who are willing to work for free. ¶

it is now illegal to stand on a street corner holding a sign in indianapolis

way to go, jerks. ¶

star ed board begs for a bad bill

the city's latest panhandling proposal—or i should say, the city's proposed ban on holding signs at intersections—goes up for a vote tonight. the indy star ed board, unsurprisingly, is in favor. also unsurprisingly, their editorial in favor of the ban is weak and unconvincing, and either ignores or brushes aside the many arguments against the proposal.

to begin, they wave away accusations of classism by noting that the head of wheeler mission has spoken in favor of the proposal. this is rhetorically equivalent to i'm not racist: i have a black friend, except in this case the friend isn't even black, but just happens to work with black folks. sorry, but even if we assume that the (unnamed) mission head isn't motivated by classism, that doesn't automatically absolve councillor mcquillen or other supporters.

next, the editorial moves on to the "public safety" argument:

It's not only that aggressive panhandlers occasionally pose a threat to motorists. The ordinance also would stop a common but dangerous practice in which church groups, youth sports teams and others raise money by walking through traffic at busy intersections.

let's take this a sentence at a time, shall we? aggressive panhandlers "pose a threat"? how so, exactly? this is probably a veiled reference to the woman who claimed she was carjacked by a panhandler, but that's not really a panhandling problem—it's a carjacking problem. the proposal won't stop carjackings: it will only inspire carjackers to find some other scam. instead of holding signs, they'll pretend to have a flat tire, or something else.

furthermore, aggressive panhandling is already illegal under the previous panhandling bill that was passed last year! likewise, the "dangerous practice" of walking through traffic is also already illegal under a law that was passed years ago! why do we need a new law when the existing laws aren't being enforced?

what about concerns—discussed on this blog at great length—that the proposal unfairly restricts speech rights of many other groups in addition to panhandlers? those concerns are also brushed aside without a thought:

It's not that council member Michael McQuillen, the sponsor of the ordinance, has anything against Little League teams, any more than he's trying to hurt the homeless. It's simply that the middle of a public street or highway isn't the proper venue to raise money for charities, no matter how worthy the cause.

even if we accept this claim without debate, it still doesn't hold water. okay, fundraising "in the middle of the street" is bad. that covers the nonprofit volunteers who stand on the median accepting donations. but what about the live-sign holder standing on the corner, advertising $5 domino's pizzas? or the person in the statue of liberty costume advertising tax services? they're not walking in traffic or taking donations, but they too would be banned from holding signs near intersections. (some may even lose their jobs.) what about the abortion protesters who seem to peacefully assemble downtown every week or so? what about buskers and other street performers, who freely share their art in exchange for the occasional tip? what about kids holding a car wash for their church group? where are they supposed to advertise their service if not by the side of the street? all of these people would be affected by the ordinance. does any reasonable person believe that they're a public safety menace?

and we haven't even mentioned the problem of selective enforcement.

ultimately, the ed board (and other ordinance supporters) fail to ask themselves the most basic question that should be considered before passing a ban on behavior: do we really need a new law, or can we get the same result by simply enforcing the laws we already have?

the language of the bill is online here (pdf link). i can only hope that the council will come to their senses and vote against it... but with the council dominated by republicans, i don't have much faith in that happening. ¶

gerry mann deletes blog... but it's still in the cache

local right-winger gerry mann got into a much-blogged-about exchange with rep andré carson recently. mann was soon revealed to be a blogger, who'd written, among other things, that obama is "not only a Marxist and a crook; he is also a raciest (sic)".

today, the blog is gone, as an embarrassed mann is apparently trying to erase his tracks. but google has a cache, which—for now at least—still has his writings available for view. for example, here's a screencap of his controversial post titled "what's obama's problem?" (click for a larger version):

pretty incendiary stuff.

p.s. while we're on the subject of blog deletions, i was curious to discover recently that hoosiersforfairtaxation has gone invite-only. this struck me as odd, considering how melyssa always loved to gloat about how much traffic she got. i can't say i'll miss it, though. ¶

panhandling issue too complicated for tully

in today's column, matt tully laments that the issues surrounding the city's latest proposed panhandling ordinance are "complicated", but fails to adequately explain just why this is so.

the column's most grievous flaw is that it fails to acknowledge the role of classism in the debate—and classism is at the very heart of the proposed ordinance. let there be no doubt: the whole point of the proposal is that panhandlers, who are poor and, more importantly, look poor, make a certain segment of the population uncomfortable. people like councilor mike mcquillen are so disgusted by these disheveled panhandlers that they're willing to strip away everyone's right to stand on a street corner holding a sign.

perhaps the reason tully doesn't acknowledge the role of classism in the debate is because of his own classism: he says that arguments for the ordinance are "compelling" and agrees with ICVA CEO don welsh that panhandlers have a "profound and negative impact on the image of Indianapolis." or perhaps he naively believes that the bill isn't classist because it "does not solely target panhandlers" and applies to "kids selling car washes, people holding political or going-out-of-business signs, and more". of course, the only reason it applies to those folks is because it has to in order to pass constitutional muster (and even then, it could still be struck down as unconstitutional once the inevitable lawsuits hit the courts). if this were truly about public safety and not about dirty panhandlers, we wouldn't still be calling it a panhandling ordinance.

no, the bill is clearly about panhandlers, and everyone else who'd be affected is just collateral damage. even tully can't be bothered to spend more than a sentence discussing the kids' car washes, church fundraisers, and live sign holders who'd be restricted from advertising their wares. of course, a complete listing of everyone who'd be unjustly branded a panhandler by this ordinance would be so long that it would take up tully's entire column, and new examples are coming to light all the time. (one of the column's commenters—insert standard disclaimer about the vileness of indy star comments section here—points out that buskers and street performers would also be affected, which hadn't occurred to me, but makes perfect sense.)

the column isn't a complete wash, though. it has a couple good passages... even if those passages are just quotes from other people:

Timothy Maguire, who serves as chairman of the Marion County Libertarian Party, walked to the podium. He pointed to an existing law that allows police to go after aggressive panhandlers.

"Why is it that whenever the laws on the books are not being enforced, the knee-jerk reaction is to create new laws that won't accomplish anything?" Maguire asked, adding: "Do you just need to admit that we don't like looking at panhandlers?"

quite. the law is clear that panhandlers aren't even supposed to speak to passersby unless spoken to first. but even standing there quietly is too much, apparently.

in the end, tully concludes that "[i]t's a reasonable issue" and "worth debating". but he never quite explains what's so reasonable about it. he never examines the arguments of the bill's sponsors; he only agrees with them, as if it's self-evident that those filthy panhandlers don't belong on our street corners, as if the mere act of holding a sign makes someone a menace to public safety.

the issues are complicated, all right. apparently, they're not only too complicated for republicans on the council, but they're too complicated for political columnists, as well. ¶

last chance to talk chappaquiddick

shorter gary welsh: i'd like to take the opportunity of senator ted kennedy's death to ignore his five decades in politics and instead discuss an auto accident that happened 40 years ago. ¶

first, they came for the hot-n-ready pizza guy

yesterday, i wondered whether the indianapolis city-county council is really so scared of panhandlers that it's ready to take away speech rights from church groups, pizza parlors, and community car washes. apparently, as far as the public safety committee is concerned, the answer is yes:

The vote was 5-1 in favor of the proposal, with Councilwoman Mary Moriarty Adams, a Democrat, voting against it.

The ordinance, sponsored by Republican Michael McQuillen, would make it a violation of city code to stand within 50 feet of a stoplight or a stop sign on a public right of way while soliciting, advertising, selling a product or talking to someone in a vehicle.

The measure would strengthen an existing panhandling ordinance that prohibits asking people for money orally or by street performance, though McQuillen pointed out the new ordinance also would apply to activities such as church fundraisers and teenagers' car washes. Violation of the ordinance would be punishable by a fine.

yes, the council has figured out that in order for their precious panhandling bill to be constitutional, it must apply to all commercial speech—from the black muslims selling incense to the firefighters collecting charitable donations to the kid in the cow costume in front of chick-fil-a. and as it turns out, five members of the public safety committee are cool with that.

as if i haven't been harping on about it ad nauseam, in my neighborhood, a lot of businesses these days have kids in front waving signs in a desperate plea for business. it's tacky, and a lousy after-school job to be sure, but a threat to public safety? not in my neighborhood, at least. i have to wonder whether the owners and managers of these businesses even know that this ordinance would affect them.

the bill is scheduled for a full council vote next monday. while i'd like to think it won't pass, i don't exactly have faith in the republican-led council to do the right thing—barring an outcry from local fast-food joints, tax preparers, and non-profit groups. ¶

signs, signs, everywhere signs

the lead item in today's behind closed doors column is about how mayor greg "end of country-club politics" ballard has received free memberships to all the city's snootiest country clubs. it's recommended reading, but i don't have much to add.

instead, i'd like to focus on the final item in the column:

A panhandling ordinance that's been hotly debated in city hall has gotten some help from its Facebook friends.

Councilman Mike McQuillen, a Republican who sponsored an ordinance to ban people from holding signs within 50 feet of traffic lights or stop signs, has started a Facebook group called "Indy, Stop the Panhandling!" As of Friday, the group had drawn about 280 members in support of the ordinance, which goes back to the council's public safety committee Monday for public input.

"These are people I've never heard of," McQuillen said of the members. "I thought a few of my friends would join."

now, those 280 fans seemingly include everyone in mcquillen's family, as well as a number of people who are active in local republican politics (ryan vaughn, theresa lubbers, lincoln plowman, mike jezierski, murray clark, ernie shearer, bart mcatee... and those are just some of the names i recognize off the top of my head), but let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that most of them are just normal facebookers.

The Facebook page also serves as a forum for discussion. People have posted comments offering support ("Go, Michael, go!"), while others have questioned the need for another law to address the problem.

now this part isn't so impressive. the group's wall currently has a whopping 15 comments. five of them are from mcquillen himself. another is from someone in florida, who states, "I wish someone would start this n key west". and two of them suggest we don't need another panhandling law. so calling the page "a forum for discussion" might be technically accurate, but let's not get carried away.

the star goes on to note that "[s]ome council members oppose the ordinance because they feel it's classist or inhibits free speech", and yes, the ordinance is both of those things. but arguably most important, the proposal's classism makes it unconstitutional.

the entire point of the proposal is to restrict free speech rights of a specific class of people—panhandlers. but first amendment law says you can't do that! prior restraints must be content-neutral and apply to everyone. so to pass constitutional muster, a law that makes it illegal to "hold or display any sign or placard intended to solicit food, work, or other assistance" would need to apply not only to panhandlers, but to the guy standing in front of little caesar's hawking hot-n-ready pizza, the person in the cow suit in front of chick-fil-a, the people advertising liquidation sales at whatever big-box store is closing down this month, the black muslims on 38th street selling incense, the folks collecting money for muscular dystrophy, and even the scantily-clad high-schoolers holding a car wash for their church.

mcquillen and other ordinance-supporters claim that the proposal is about public safety, but let's be honest. this proposal, like past panhandling proposals, is about the privileged feeling uncomfortable around those people. unfortunately for them, the first amendment says you can't pass a prior restraint that only applies to those people. are we really so frightened of panhandlers that we're willing to interfere with community car washes and hot-n-ready pizzas? ¶

give me liberty, even if it means more deaths

oh, the things i do for you, my audience. this week, i subjected myself to watching indiana week in review, and i did it all for you.

the quality of actual political debate on the show leaves something to be desired. for example, the IWIR panel discussed recent protests in richmond over changes in school dress codes... and did so without even mentioning what people were complaining about! (among the complaints you didn't hear about: that the dress code is far too restrictive, such showing collarbone will get your kid suspended; that the school district didn't work with local retailers to ensure that acceptable clothes were available; that many parents had already bought their kids school clothes before learning that said clothes were unacceptable; and so on.) how can you cover a protest without discussing the protesters' complaints? (the answer: poorly.)

but the reason i watched was for the coverage of the governor's recent statements on motorcycle helmet safety, which host jim shella told us were "misundersood".

so what was the alleged misunderstanding? apparently, some people interpreted mitch's comments as being against wearing helmets altogether, when he is only opposed to a mandatory helmet law. (mitch himself wears a helmet, and has been photographed wearing it many a time, so clearly he's not against wearing them, but anyway...)

i did learn one thing from IWIR: that mitch wrote a letter to the editor, which was published with no fanfare on wednesday. here is mitch's published letter, in its entirety:

As I expected when I saw it, a misstatement in The Star on Aug. 16 has caused confusion. When asked about a law to force people to wear motorcycle helmets, I said (tape available) that I always wear one and encourage everyone to do so. The headline writer wrote that I said bikers should "use their heads, not cover them." That is the reverse of my constant advice and example.

Another government mandate of behavior, especially where the data are very inconclusive that it would matter, is a totally different question from urging people to take a reasonable precaution. There are many dubious behaviors that we stop short of ordering people to change by force of law, and in a free country that's as it should be.

okay, fine, so mitch encourages people to wear helmets. good for him. but he is still blatantly lying when he says "the data is inconclusive" about mandatory helmet laws. the data is crystal clear: mandatory helmet laws save lives. here are some more statistics from an NHTSA fact sheet:

• When Florida repealed its universal rider motorcycle helmet law in 2002, there were 40 percent more motorcyclists admitted to hospitals for treatment in the 30 months immediately following the helmet law change compared to the 30 months just before the law change (4,986 versus 3,567).
• After the first year of the enactment of universal helmet use laws, the following reductions of motorcycle fatalities occurred: Oregon, 33 percent; Nebraska, 32 percent; Texas, 23 percent; Washington State, 15 percent; California, 37 percent; and Maryland, 20 percent.
• Helmet use decreased following the changes in helmet laws in Arkansas and Texas. In the first full year following repeal of the law, fatalities in Arkansas increased by 21 percent, compared with the fatality rate in the last full year under the universal use law. In Texas, operator fatalities increased by 31 percent compared with the previous year when the universal helmet law was in place.
• The 1998 universal helmet law repeal in Kentucky and the 1999 repeal in Louisiana produced similar effects to those experienced by Arkansas and Texas. Observed helmet use dropped from nearly full compliance under the universal law to about 50 percent without the law. Motorcyclist fatalities increased by over 50 percent in Kentucky and over 100 percent in Louisiana. Injuries also increased substantially in both States (48 percent in Louisiana and 34 percent in Kentucky). The rates of fatalities and injuries per registered motorcycle increased in both States following the helmet law repeals.

incidentally, indiana does have a law on the books requiring helmet use, but it only applies to riders under age 18. here's what NHTSA has to say about such laws:

• Data on crashes in States where only minors are required to wear helmets show that fewer than 40 percent of the fatally-injured minors wear helmets even though the law requires them to do so. Helmet laws that govern only minors are difficult to enforce.
• Helmet use laws governing all motorcycle riders (universal helmet laws) significantly increase helmet use and are easily enforced because of riders’ high visibility.
• On September 11, 2007, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommended that States that do not have universal helmet use laws enact them, and that all States require motorcyclists to use FMVSS 218-compliant motorcycle helmets while riding (operating), or as a passenger on any motorcycle.

care to hazard a guess on whether anyone on the IWIR panel mentioned any of this?

if you guessed no, then congratulations! the entire discussion lasted at most 90 seconds. first, shella mentioned poor misunderstood mitch's letter to the editor, and that mitch is in favor of wearing helmets, but against a mandatory helmet law. shella went on to suggest that "you could never get a law passed" requiring motorcycle helmets in indiana. then democratic flack ann delaney wondered whether mitch is in favor of mandatory seat belt laws. finally, republican flack toby mcclamroch reiterated the correctness of mitch's position, stating that helmets are good because "motorcycles are dangerous." (really, toby? you don't say!) with that, the discussion—and the whole program—were over. the two journalists on the panel weren't given a chance to respond—not that i imagine they would've had much to say. it didn't seem like anyone on the show had bothered to do any research; no actual facts were discussed at any time during the 30-minute program, only conventional wisdom.

truly, a shameful effort all around. the governor lies, repeatedly, to the press about motorcycle helmet safety, and nobody in the local media—nobody at the indy star, and nobody on indiana week in review—makes even a token effort to confirm whether his statements are true.

how is the public supposed to know the truth when the media refuses to fact-check what politicans say, when people like mitch daniels are allowed to lie with impunity, knowing that nobody in the media will call them out on it? our political discourse is thoroughly broken. ¶

please don't let me be misunderstood

typically, watching indiana week in review—a show in which two political hacks and three business-friendly journalists get all wonky about the week's news—isn't my idea of fun. but this week, i may need to tune in:

Topics to be discussed on Indiana Week in Review today:

Evan Bayh's voting record. Is there a shift to the right this year?

Cap and Trade opponents rally in Indianapolis

Baron Hill's Tele-town hall plans

André Carson's lack of town hall plans

Dress Code protest at Richmond High School

Mitch Daniels' misunderstood remarks about motorcycle helmet use

emphasis mine. note the framing here: poor misunderstood mitch! all he did was claim that helmets aren't that important for motorcycle safety! never mind that his remarks were plainly, demonstrably false—he's just misunderstood! and this is the frame being advanced not by IWR's resident republican hack, but by the show's host and moderator, jim shella!

to refresh your memory, since i haven't seen this discussed much outside of this blog or a brief mention by doghouse riley—here are the remarks in question:

Asked, though, if those fatalities might be lessened with a mandatory helmet law, Daniels said that "honestly, the data says that's not the key -- that really the key is practicing motorcycle safety and people on four wheels being a little more attentive. That's what will make the difference, just as seat belts have made a difference."

of course, the data says precisely the opposite. numerous studies have shown that:

• motorcycle helmets save lives and help prevent serious injury
• mandatory helmet laws encourage more people to wear helmets, thus
• mandatory helmet laws save lives

in fact, studies have shown that wearing a helmet is the #1 most important factor in surviving motorcycle crashes. anyone who tells you otherwise is lying, plain and simple.

in my previous post on the subject, i wondered why the indy star let mitch get away with such blatant falsehoods. why didn't someone at the star spend five minutes on the NHTSA site, like i did, finding the actual data? after all, when someone tells me something i know is provably false, my reaction is to prove it false, not to simply repeat the false assertion without challenging it. they didn't even bother getting a quote from a motorcycle helmet proponent to counter mitch's claims, which is what usually passes for "balance" these days.

but shella is taking things one step further. if the governor says something that, on its face, seems to be false, shella assumes that the governor must have been misunderstood! because gosh and golly, it's not like a politician would ever lie about something like that.

there are so many ways shella could've phrase that line. here are some examples, any one of which would have been more accurate:

• Mitch Daniels' recent remarks about motorcycle helmet use
• Mitch Daniels' controversial remarks about motorcycle helmet use
• Mitch Daniels' misunderstanding about motorcycle helmet use
• Mitch Daniels' misinformed remarks about motorcycle helmet use
• Mitch Daniels' blatant lies about motorcycle helmet use
• Mitch Daniels' second-degree burns after his pants spontaneously combusted while lying about motorcycle helmet use

that shella instead chose "misunderstood" is telling: shella is more interested in covering for the governor than in getting to the truth about motorcycle helmet safety.

it should be interesting to see how they try to spin this one on IWR. i'm also curious to see whether anyone other than ann delaney (IWR's token democrat) bothers pointing out the truth. i'm not holding my breath on that one. ¶