Friday Local News Mashup! Dogs, Gods, and Odds

Today is an overwhelming news day locally, so here are the highlights….

Safety NOT in These Numbers!

How can anyone feel safer in Indianapolis now than two years ago? Masked gunmen robbed the downtown Dunkin’ Donuts this morning. (Learn to spell, oh, purveyor of greasy delights! It’s “doughnuts.”). A Village Pantry got hit a bit later, and we just added a homicide to our annual count. For the past two months, the city has suffered from a barrage of violent crime unlike anything I've seen in quite some time.

Dog-Killer, the Bounty Hunt

In South Bend, residents pooled together $1,000 as a reward for information about a home robber who shot and killed a three-legged dog who lost the limb to bone cancer. Only a sick puppy would kill a sick puppy, and I’d like to deposit this guy in a small closet with some Pit Bulls.

But I’m always intrigued at the heightened level of outrage over animal cruelty. Gina Oliver says that the robbers “crossed a line that no one should ever cross.” Surely, Gina Oliver knows of people who have been murdered in South Bend. Has she ever established a reward fund for the information about those murderers?

This story made me think of what D.L. Hughley said shortly after Michael Vick's arrest:

"White people love their dogs, boy. Michael Vick is gonna get the death penalty. Right now, O.J. Simpson is off somewhere thinking, "Man, I'm sure glad I didn't kill the dog, too.' "

Is there anybody who thinks that there are many human murder victims whose deaths prompt less outrage? What’s your take on this? Is it because people believe other people have a fighting chance and dogs don’t? What about if the dog that gets shot is a Doberman? What prompts so many to feel more sympathy for man’s best friend than for man?

Terre Haute Baptists "Go Negative" on Islam

A Baptist Church in Terre Haute (which the French translate as "high ground" but West Hautians translate as "terrible hole") posted the message "Jesus rose and died for your sins. What did Allah do?"

Now here's the insane part. Pastor Bob Parker said the sign wasn't meant to be derogatory to Islam. Does anybody believe this was posed on the little church board as an insightful, comparative religion question?!? Tsk, tsk, Pastor Bob. Last time I checked, lying was a sin.

This story reminded me of the late George Carlin's take on claims of religious superiority:

...if you read history, you realise that God is one of the leading causes of death. Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Christians all taking turns killing each other 'cuz God told them it was a good idea. The sword of God, the blood of the land, veangence is mine. Millions of dead (m.f.) all because they gave the wrong answer to the God question. 'You believe in God?' 'No.' BLAM! Dead. 'You believe in God?' 'Yes.' 'You believe in my God? 'No.' BLAM! Dead.

'My God has a bigger (expletive) than your God!'

Next Time Pay the Freakin’ Ticket

What the hell was he thinking? We don’t know.

Instead of paying a ticket for illegally parking his bike, a Purdue University student thought it would be funny to put the ticket, a bike lock, and a $20 bill in a box and leave it under suspicious circumstances in the Vistor’s Center.

Guess the joke is on him. The bomb squad had to scan the package, and now the student is being accused of “terrorist mischief,” a C felony. If you don’t know by now that Americans don’t play around with terrorism, you’re basically an imbecilic gluteus maximum.

Oxley Hospitalized

Indiana State Representative Dennis Oxley, Sr., is in critical condition with an “undisclosed illness.” The Star says nobody knows any more than that. Our prayers go out to Representative Oxley and his family.

Friday Local News Mashup! Dogs, Gods, and Odds

The Conservative-Liberal Paradox on Religion

This is a guest post from Publius Deux, and it's one the most thought-provoking, painfully objective analysis on the politics-religion stew I've seen in some time. I hope you agree.

Imagine a subculture where you find the following: Dancing is not permitted. Drinking is not permitted. Women are expected to be subservient to men and remain in the home with the children. Women cannot preach. Gay persons are condemned. Abortion is unthinkable. Premarital and extramarital sex bring great shame on members. Women must dress modestly. Any persons who do not belong to this subculture will suffer damnation. God’s law is binding on all persons, even those outside the subculture. Popular culture and modern social mores should be avoided as unclean.

Do you find yourself condemning these people as misogynistic, homophobic bigots? Do you find yourself mocking these narrow-minded rubes? Do you find yourself lamenting the repressed members of the community? Are you sympathetic to their purity? Are you welcoming of their diversity?

Did you imagine an Evangelical Baptist community? Did you imagine a Wahabi Muslim community? Did you imagine an Amish community?

Ask yourself those questions in the second paragraph in regard to each community.

The first paragraph accurately describes any one of these communities.

Where do your sympathies lie? Where do your antipathies lie?

Do you support an gallery’s decision to display a crucifix in a jar of piss as legitimate social commentary? Do you support Yale’s decision to censor and remove the Mohammad Cartoons from its library out of deference to Muslim sentiment?

Do you believe placing the 10 Commandments at a municipal airport is antithetical to the Separation of Church and State? Do you believe ritual foot-washing basins at a municipal airport are reasonable accommodations?

Is it unconstitutional to allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense contraceptives on Christian principles? Is it constitutional to allow cab drivers to refuse seeing-eye-dogs as passengers on Islamic principles?

Conservatives tend to demand accommodations that they would refuse other religious groups. Liberals tend to demand tolerance and respect in regard to some religions but not others. Conservatives tend to ignore the similarities with some religions. Liberals tend to be deaf regarding the inequalities of some religions.

Where do you find yourself a hypocrite in the culture wars?

The Conservative-Liberal Paradox on Religion

The Ballad of Ballard - A Dramedy In One Scene

Scene 1.

Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard sits in his office drinking a supersized, diet Mountain Dew while reading over a stack of papers. Two advisors lurk over him, one holding the Mayor's Quarterpounder and the other holding his supersized order of fries.

Mayor: I tell you, boys, the Corps was a lot easier. Semper Fi! (SLURP!) See, back then, people would tell me what to do, and I was a whiz following their notions and whatnot. I was an implementer, not an idealator. But now I've got to figure things out all the time. I haven't had a lot of practice at that. (SLURP!)

Advisor 1 (emphatically): We know!

Mayor: 'Member when I let Senator Kenley try to solve our CIB problems with some of these so-called "ideas" while I hid under my desk? He shore got beat like a rented mule. That plan got blown up like a watermelon in Dan Burton's back yard! And 'member when I thought it was a good idea to let my donor buddy at the country club have an IMPD squad car? Look what that got me! An ethics complaint! Ideas are dangerous, so it's best not to have any. That's why I'm glad you guys invented all those Requests for Proposals, Requests for Information, and Requests for Ideas!

Advisor 2: Well, we didn't create Requests for Prop...

Mayor: They're awesome! (SLURP!) Like, you know how we still don't know what to do with the CIB, so we just said, "Here ya go, private sector boys! Tell us what you'd do, and maybe we'll let ya!" Know how we've got a City Market as productive as a Steve Buyer scholarship fund? If it weren't for consultants, private sector input, and that Board, I'd have to come up with an idea. And remember when I didn't have any ideas for neighborhood-based, crime-fighting strategies for our police, so we just privatized it by cutting some checks to neighborhood groups and ministers and telling them to use the money for idea-lizing the crime problem?

Advisor 1 (rolls eyes): Mr. Mayor, we're getting roasted on violent crime!

Mayor: Homicides are lower than ever, at least that's what somebody on Abdul in the Morning said I should be saying.

Advisor 2: We should tell people to take solace that they're only getting robbed and shot but not killed?

Mayor: That's right, they need to know that they probably won't die under my administration...because Wishard does such a great job. Good thing we're getting a new hospital. That right there....that's another good idea that I had nothing to do with. (SLURP!) See how awesome it is when you don't have ideas? You can jump on at the very end and have everybody treat you like the hero!

Advisor 1: Mr. Mayor, this is all fascinating, but we need to focus. We still have a budget shortfall, and you pledged a ten percent across-the-board cut, so we're going to have to come up with another idea for making or saving some money. We need ideas.

Mayor: Didn't you ever read Shakespeare, son?!? Remember Julius "Dr. J." Caesar? Remember when the seer warned, "Fear the Ideas of March?"

Advisor 2: Mr. Mayor, that was the Ides of M...

Mayor: Whoo hoo!!! I've got it, boys! Privatizing and selling assets is so cool, let's issue an RFP to see what ideas the private sector can come up with for my office. I bet if we talked to IBM, they might be able to figure out ways to do what I do better than I'm doing it now. I bet we could get them for a song, too, 'cause I heard they're looking for government work. Maybe if there wasn't a mayor's office here, we could do something really cool with it, like having a little Chinatown on the 25th floor with fortune cookies that read "Help! I'm trapped in a government bureaucracy!" Ha ha ha! Boy, I tell you, that'd be awesome. (SLURP!)

Advisor 2: I'm sorry, are you saying you want to privatize your entire office?

Mayor: Why not? I'm not using it all that much, am I?

Exeunt.

The Ballad of Ballard - A Dramedy In One Scene

Debunking the "All Muslims Are Jihadists" Myth

Even with hindsight being 20/20, the President and his administration will be hard-pressed to conclude that the U.S. military didn't fall down on the job protecting our soldiers from Nidal Hassan. What is much murkier, though, is whether the military failed to keep Hassan from going jihadist, from going postal, or from going postal jihadist.

How Americans resolve this dilemma has weighty ramifications for the estimated 5.2 million Muslim-Americans.

Let me start by noting that a recurring theme in conservative blogs is that Muslims should be deported, expelled from the military, or "watched" because they are dangerous. We are told "they" are dangerous because Islam is a violent faith. Islam has also been parodied as archaic patriarchy.

These notions intrigue me because when I attended the Muslim Alliance of Indiana's annual conference a few weeks ago, Congressman Andre Carson expressed outrage over lack of a more pronounced public outcry when a renowned Muslim leader allegedly decapitated his wife. I'm paraphrasing here, but the Congressman bellowed, "If we do not speak out (on cases like this), nobody will give a damn what Muslims have to say about anything else." The crowd erupted in the most sustained applause of the conference.

I envisioned someone not as familiar with Muslims asking, "If Islam is led by violent patriarchs, how come none of them are at this statewide gathering of Muslim leaders?"

The better question for those not in attendance is, "Might your stereotype be off?" Is it really fair to brand an entire faith as violent based on the acts of a handful of extremists? People who proffer the notion of inherent Muslim violence usually make one of two claims: (1) most Muslims behave violently; or (2) Islam mandates violence against "the infidel."

The global estimate for Muslims ranges between 700 million and 1.2 billion. The global estimate for all acts of terrorism (including those by every separatist or "liberation" group in the world) is less than 10,000 annually. Even if you use the low estimate and attribute all 10,000 acts of terror to Islamic jihadists, that means that only .0014% of Muslims ever engage in violence. And this is what will make some condemn all Muslims?

We are able to see heterogeneity in our own faith, but not in others. As a result, when a Muslim named Hassan kills U.S. soldiers, it's an indictment not of an individual or even that individual's interpretation of his faith, but rather, of the faith itself. But when a Christian kills an abortion doctor, or when a Christian group thinks its Biblical duty is to shout "God hates fags!" during funerals of U.S. military members, it's an anomaly.

Americans, for some reason, also fixate on their perception of what Islam requires of its adherents more than on the overall morality of those adherents. I can point to serial killers and mothers who've drowned their own kids to purge their demons. They claim Christianity as their faith, as do a staggering number of violent felons and thieves in America. Even adjusted per capita, I'm less likely to die at the hands of a self-identified Muslim than I am at the hands of a self-identified Christian.

Oh, I hear people saying, "Actually, anybody who would be violent isn't really a Christian, so they take the title falsely." But somehow anybody who is violent as a Muslim is always really a Muslim? And what if the violent Christians say they killed because they thought that's what their faith required? Can only Christians be mistaken in their interpretations of holy texts?

People looking for justification for their anti-Muslim sentiments will invariably say, "Yes, Chris, but the Koran calls for jihad against the infidel."

Indeed, but isn't the proper question not what the ancient texts of a religion say, but rather, what the adherents of the faith actually do in response to those texts? The Old Testament calls for stoning a wayward child, but you can't find a Jew alive who does it. Until recently, the Catholic Church said birth control was a sin. How many Catholics absolutely ignored that edict? And how in the world can we have so many different sects of Christianity, and yet still look at Islam as a monolithic faith?

In truth, Islam is at war between competing ideologies, just as Christianity is now and had been over slavery. Tell a Christian that Christianity was used to justify slavery and it serves as the current core belief for the Ku Klux Klan, and he or she will redirect you to the fact Christianity lead to the abolition of slavery. And I would tell you that both of these things are true.

Yes, wrap your mind around this. You can have it both ways because NO RELIGION IS A MONOLITH.

Is there a sect of Islam that is radical, violent, and hellbent on destroying America? I'd say yes. But the significance of this sect is overexaggerated by an American media that lives by "if it bleeds, it leads." Ninety-nine percent of Muslims do not engage in religious-based violence. Yet, as with any "civil war" between peaceful and confrontational ideologies, the surest way to create new adherents to radicalism is to ostracize the peaceful by failing to differentiate between the camps.

In short, you can have a Nidal Hassan who just went nuts (not likely, given his communications and comments). You can have a Nidal Hassan who was a "homegrown terrorist" who always knew his mission (not likely, given he was in the military long enough to become a major but never acted violently before - ya gotta admit, that's some seriously long-range planning). Or you can have a guy who sorta thought he had a duty, but his desire to act would not have ever kicked in until he blew a gasket. (As an aside, how many Klansmen talk about harming minorities but never do? Why hasn't anybody every recommended deporting them? When the Christians kill abortion doctors, why don't we harass the larger Christian community for failing to keep it from happening?)

Your lesson is this. America must take its Muslims one at a time, just like its Christians. Monitor radical statements, undoubtedly, but do not leave it at Muslims. Before 9/11, the greatest violence against America was perpetrated by a member of the U.S. Army, Timothy McVeigh. Why didn't anybody foresee his violence?

Debunking the "All Muslims Are Jihadists" Myth

Purdue Gets It Right on Chapman; Students....Not So Much!

Ahhhh....the young....so idealistic and ignorant of public relations!

I might get grief for this, but...(1) Purdue University was absolutely right not to bow to student demands for the termination of professor Bert Chapman, and (2) the students, though well-intentioned, "chose poorly."

Calls for Chapman's ouster came after he posted comments about the alleged economic costs of homosexuality on his conservative blog.

The First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." Too many Americans who haven't actually read the passage think "the First amendment" means speech without consequences. It doesn't.

The focus is on government stiffling free speech, not private individuals (or even groups of students). This is why I said "knock yourself out" when a bunch of good old boys with belt buckles bearing their names crushed Dixie Chick CDs with a steamroller. I said the same thing when people protested Don Imus and Lou Dobbs, as well as when conservatives boycotted the Teletubbies because one carried a purse and had a triangle on his head. (As an aside, did anyone else find it amusing that conservatives branded Tinky Winky gay while somehow missing that two of the other Teletubbies have phalluses coming out of their heads?)

Individuals and groups can protest, and they can boycott. But when they start trying to force government entities like public universities to take sides on a moral debate, they've crossed the line. In addition, if freedom of expression deserves extra protection anywhere, isn't it on a college campus, the alleged bastion of academic freedom?

Too many people in my party try to stifle dissenting views they find deplorable. We must ask more from ourselves, or we'll get trapped in the same yoke when the political tide turns. Remember the plea from The American President?

"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center-stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free."

Maybe it's the lawyer in me, but I get nervous when people try to stop others from raising questions, and that's what's transpired here.

I read Chapman's piece because I didn't want to be one of those folks who criticize without first-hand knowledge. Chapman asks, in an admittedly semi-demagogic and only semi-scholarly way what we could have achieved healthwise had we not spent billions on AIDS funding.

While I say, given how the federal government's tragic inaction in the early 1980's permitted the proliferation of HIV, sums spent thereafter were necessary, isn't the most fundamental question a citizen gets to ask his government, "What was the next best alternative for the dollars you spent?"

Chapman's piece is undoubtedly anti-gay, as it classifies homosexuality as "aberrant." But it does something else that is not customary in gay-bashing screeds - it classifies all sex out of heterosexual marriage as aberrant and costly to society.

This is noteworthy because many Republicans/conservatives tend to draw the lines of acceptable conduct right at the ledge where they stand, which is why a staggering number condemn homosexuality while also being serial adulterers. Chapman seems intent not to let them off the hook, and if he cannot ask his questions on a private blog without fear of the governmental hand slapping him down, where can he?

Now, do I think Chapman's comments are wrong? Yes. But this is precisely why I do not fear their injection into public discourse. If Chapman's views are off-base, they will not take hold, we'll win on the merits, and Chapmans of the world fade into obscurity.

That didn't happen here.

My hope is that one day the self-aggrandizing who are so eager to lead protests will realize that the main byproduct of their actions is nothing but heightened publicity for the ill-formed view and its purveyor. I promise you, Chapman is now a political martyr for the right and his blog traffic has gone up 1,000 fold.

Maybe it's the students who needed to be shut up.

Purdue Gets It Right on Chapman; Students....Not So Much!

Tew for One! Kennedy Picks Up Kip, iPOPA Quotes "The Wire"

Here's a message for my fellow Marion County Democrats.

Kip Tew, President Obama's state campaign chair, has shelved his mayoral ambitions and endorsed Democrat Melina Kennedy for Mayor. Kip states that Melina's work ethic and ability on the campaign trail convinced him she's the best candidate for the Democratic Party.

Embracing the Kennedy talking points, Kip notes, “Melina is an experienced job-creator, she is passionate about all of our families’ futures, and her vision of an Indianapolis that reaches higher is something--as a father--I believe in.”

While iPopa is a fan of Kip's mavericky ways, objectively, I knew his vocation ("lawyer-lobbyist") wouldn't bode any better for his candidacy than the media's labeling of Brian Williams as a "venture capitalist." (Yow! Way to morph a thoughtful idea man into a cigar-chomping, Republican archetype!)

By stepping out now, Kip furthers the coalescence that has been building around Melina among Democratic Party regulars since Joe Hogsett stepped out.

Part of being painfully objective means you give both sides of a story, even when it pains you. So here it is.

It will be difficult to convince me the Kennedy campaign operation isn't getting smarter. Her press release bio footer no longer starts with her employment at a (gasp!) big, Indianapolis law firm. Instead, it centers on Melina's job growth efforts, both as deputy mayor and as co-owner of what, for my money, is the best athletic shoe store in Indy. The bio footer also highlights Melina's notable civic engagement. While this footer should have been done from the outset, I'm fond of the saying, "Don't complain they showed up late to the party; celebrate the fact they got here."

On the downside, while Melina has an endorsement from the Laborers, I'm hearing that she's got some selling to do in the labor community (which wasn't all that eager to cough up for her prosecutor's race until an eight-hundred-pound gorilla-mayor sat on some folks). Also, I've talked to too many people who, while acting certain Melina is going to be our consensus candidate, do so with an air of startling ambivalence. It reminds me of a guy whose crotch is sideswiped by a football toss - he knows the pain is coming, and so he just accepts its inevitability.

I'm sorry, but I'm just seeing too much muted enthusiasm for my tastes, but what galls me is that nobody will express reservations publicly (or for attribution).

I'm praying I'm reading this all wrong because Melina is amazingly talented and prepared. She's legit, not faux mayor dressing. But soon it won't matter because the window will close on everybody who thought about saying the Empress has No Clothes but didn't.

To paraphrase Slim Charles from the greatest show of all time, The Wire:

"Fact is, we went to war, and now there ain't no going back. Once you in it, you in it. If it's a lie, then we fight on that lie. But we gotta fight."

If you think our best hope to reclaim the 25th floor is Brian Williams, Jose Evans, or Melina, get off the fence and speak your piece urgently because when this moment passes, whoever emerges (smart money says Melina) will need your full-throated support and donations.

And anybody who thinks Mayor Ballard will not be formidable is delusional. Look at his bank account. Too many people that spit on him four years ago have a vested interest in him now.

We can win the Mayor's office, but only if all the good soliders are ready for battle. If Melina is our General, are you?

Tew for One! Kennedy Picks Up Kip, iPOPA Quotes "The Wire"

Daniels Gets Kudos From IPOPA?!?!

To some in my political circle, he's the man we love to hate. In the past month, I blasted him for pushing forward with privatization of public benefits in Indiana even though the same experiment failed miserably in Texas.

But my view of our Governor, Mitch Daniels, changed radically with a simple act last Friday.

I was standing in the hall at a Continuing Legal Education (CLE) program for the Julian Center and Heartland Pro Bono Council when my colleague, Shariq Siddiqui, got a phone call on his cell phone.

"Hello."

(Voice on other ends says something....)

"Oh, hello, Governor...." Ears perk up and open widely!

It's a brief conversation, and when it ends, I have to ask. "I'm sorry, but did you just talk to Governor Daniels?" Shariq knows a cross-examination is coming, as I'm always looking for a story, so he fesses up.

Shariq informs me that, yes, it was the Governor, and he called because he had read the press release issued by the Muslim Alliance of Indiana (MAI) decrying the actions of the shooter at Ford Hood, Texas. The Governor tells Shariq he's proud of MAI. Unlike some other Muslim organizations nationally, MAI does not focus solely on Muslim soldiers and the microscope they are undoubtedly going to face now. MAI's statement (and its ensuing editorial) is an unequivocal denunciation of the inexcusable act, and it calls on all Muslims to extend their prayers and generosity to military families.

Based on the tone of both comments on the Indianapolis Star and other papers throughout the country and the blog postings of the conservatorati, the Governor doesn't do himself any favors openly embracing MAI. And yet, he does it anyway, because he knows MAI has supported him, and he has supported it by hosting an annual Iftar at the Statehouse.

The Governor knows the scrutiny (and possible violence) coming next for Muslims in America, and he has the decency and intellectual honesty to not put every Muslim in a radical, jihadist camp (more on this in a separate posting).

Being painfully objective means giving credit where it's due, even to my political adversaries, and I tip my hat to the Governor for being, not just a leader, but a moral leader on this issue. I daresay that there will be segments of my own party that will not be this bold.

Then the next day, the Governor hit another one out of the park when he signals to casinos that there aren't going to be any special tax treats just because Ohio has passed land-based casino gambling. (As an aside, certainly the people who invested in the Indiana licenses contemplated new entries into the market? If not, sorry, but they're crappy business people).

The Governor states that, if "bailouts" were to occur, they certainly wouldn't go first to an industry that is profitable. However, the Governor agrees to scrap some costly and ridiculous regulations, such as requiring an engine and sea captain on a boat that never goes anywhere.

The Governor correctly ridicules what I have long called "the morality carwash" - the notion that somehow the sin of gambling washes off if it occurs in a large body of water.

You're batting two for two this week, Governor. I wouldn't be painfully objective if I didn't say so.

Daniels Gets Kudos From IPOPA?!?!