The Bisard Case and The Integrity of Our Police Force

It's hard to be a cop.  Harder than I can imagine.  I have a few friends that are cops.  I wouldn't want to trade places with them.

One of the hardest thing about being a cop has got to be the lack of respect shown to you by different segments of the population.  Mostly, I'm sure this comes from people that are up to no good and the presence of a police officer means they have to delay or abort their nefarious plans.

Sometimes, though, the lack of respect comes from those who are mostly good and would never consider doing harm to another.  Maybe that lack of respect comes out of anger; a person was speeding or rolled through a stop sign and got a ticket.  Angry over the ticket, even though that person broke the law, they have a show of disrespect to the police officer.  Hey, they're just doing their job.

But then there's another side.  There's the side of  "cops taking care of their own."  This is the side that would really piss me off if I was a cop.  The majority of police officers do their jobs and live by operating above and beyond the demands of the law. They understand that when all eyes are on them, they have to go above and beyond to earn and keep the respect of the citizens. A few, though, ruin it for the rest of the force.

One of the ways that cops operate above the law is speeding.  That's one that really gets on my nerves.  The speed limit on I465 around Indianapolis is 55mph.  I regularly set my cruise control at somewhere between 63 and 65.  Plenty of people pass me, including off-duty police in squad cars moving at 70mph or more.  I may not literally see it every day, but I see it several times a week.  Sometimes the officers are on duty, too.

Hell, on-duty officers never follow the speed limit.  They are always going at least 63 on I465.  What's my motivation to follow the speed limit if they can't?

I just lost some respect.  IMPD and the State Police regularly give people tickets for going 70 on I465.  But these officers aren't scared, because they are in a police car.  They're not getting pulled over for going 70, so they just cruise along with no worries.

People like me who appreciate the police and respect them for the job they do get saddened by stuff like this.  A big sigh and a "c'mon, guys!" I know that, even though I didn't mean to, I just lost a little respect for the badge.

As I stated, the officers should, especially when on-duty or off-duty but in a squad car, follow the law to a T.  Maybe even go beyond it's requirements.  I shouldn't see officers going above 55 except when their is a call for them to do so.  It's just the right thing to do.  (And, whether I would like it or not, I bet the average speed on 465 would come down a few mph if all the cops were going 55.)

Same deal, but exponentially bigger,  with the Bisard case debacle.  The first blood draw was taken at the wrong facility and thrown out.  The second blood draw was "accidentally" removed from refrigerated storage and is now compromised.  The FBI has been asked to come in and investigate whether there has been criminal intent in these situations.

If I was one of the majority of the officers out there that are good, I'd be pissed.  This is the kind of stuff that just made the entire IMPD, as well as police officers everywhere, lose respect from the masses.  The whole "a few rotten apples" cliche at its grandest.

I love my police officer friends.  I respect you and your job; it's one of the most difficult in the world.  I just hope that you and your fellow officers remember that "protecting your own" means much more than protecting an individual officer that has done wrong.  It means protecting your department and what your badge stands for.  It means having integrity above all else because all eyes are on you and the slightest misstep is amplified and ripples out to those all around you.

To protect your own doesn't mean to turn a blind eye to misdeeds.  It does not mean to do shady things to let one of your badged brothers get away with wrongdoing.  Protecting your own means holding yourself and your fellow officers to the highest of standards at all times.  You earn respect that way.  You keep respect that way.

Smoking Bans: Can We Please Stop Pretending It's About Health?

I don't write much about smoking bans.  I know, as a political blogger, you'd think it is some kind of prerequisite.  I choose not to talk about smoking bans, though.  It's not that I don't have strong feelings on the issue, because I do.  I choose not to spend time on it because: A) I think smoking bans are inevitable, and B) There's plenty of blogs out there talking about it and I'd just be noise.

So today, the day after the Indianapolis City-County Council has, for the second time this year, passed a enhanced smoking ban, I guess I'll touch on the issue a little.

I don't really want to talk about the ban itself, though.  I'm not going to focus on what's included, what's not included, who's applauding the vote, and who's upset with it.

Instead, I want to talk about why people want a smoking ban to begin with.  And let me tell you...it's not about health.  Not about the health of patrons.  Not about the health of employees.  It's not.

And I'm not going to get into whether or not second-hand smoke is dangerous.  Or third-hand smoke, which I've started to see little bits and pieces of mentioned in stories.

I'm not going to talk about any of those things because that's not why people want a smoking ban.  Some people are concerned about those things, but that's still not why they want a smoking ban.

People who support a smoking ban want a smoking ban for one simple reason: the smell.  They hate the smell of cigarettes.  They don't like going to bars and having to put up with the smell.  They don't like coming home and smelling the smell in their clothes.  They don't like feeling like they need a shower to get the smell off of them.

I get that.  There is a non-smoking bar near my house that I enjoy going to because I don't like coming home smelling of cigarettes. (Although I will sometimes smoke a cigarette or two while I am in a bar.)  But I don't pretend I go there because it's better for my health. I go to avoid the smell.

Why do I believe that it's the smell and not the health that is why people want a smoking ban?  A couple reasons.  First, that's what people bitch about.  The smell.  Not the impact on health, but the smell.  Second, there are plenty of other things that are plenty dangerous to people's health that you here very few ramblings about.

I'm not saying no one cares about the health aspects.  I'd bet, however, that if cigarettes were odor-free, then this argument would be a much quieter one.  I just wish that smoking ban advocates would be honest and say they don't like the smell.

Tax Day Thoughts...

There's a lot of different thoughts on taxes, even among Libertarians. There are few, if any, that believe our current tax rates are appropriate. There are those that are nearly anarchists and think taxes in general are a bad thing. There are those of every level in between.

That's where I find myself. While I don't necessarily believe that an income tax is the best way to tax our citizens (I'm a fan of a spending tax, but that's a talk for another day), I don't think near-zero is exactly called for either.

I'm also not one of those Libertarians that pitches a fit every time tax season rolls around. I'm happy to pay my taxes...I just don't think that I should be paying so much of them.

So how should we be taxed and what should our taxes be used for? The scope of government is far too grand, even in a reduced tax and reduced spending environment, to cover that topic in detail within the boundaries of this blog. So I'll hit a few highlights.

I don't believe that our tax money should be funding undeclared wars. We've been at war pretty much nonstop for longer than any of us have been alive. Since World War II, not a single one of those wars has been properly declared by Congress as the Constitution mandates. That's a problem that has cost us Trillions of dollars.

And presidential candidates like Ron Paul are getting chastised for being “isolationist” when he says he wants to correct this problem. He's not saying that he doesn't want to get involved...he's just saying that if it's necessary for us to go to war then we need to get a Congressional Declaration of War. It's not isolationist, it's mandated. We just forgot.

Some Libertarians think that tax money shouldn't even be used for things like roads. That's an extreme I don't buy into. I think that there are certain pieces of infrastructure that Government should be involved in. That includes roads. That does not include the internet.

I don't think our Federal tax dollars should be going toward education. Not that I don't believe that education is important. I think that by the time your tax dollars get filtered through the bureaucratic red tape at the Federal level, then your tax dollars would be better served by being collected by the State. Not to mention that the Department of Education doesn't exactly have a track record of accomplishing, well, anything.

On the other hand, I don't really have a problem with State tax dollars being collected for education. Education succeeds better when handled locally. At the State level, though, I believe it is important for schools to have to meet the demand to improve that is created by competition. For the reason, I am a big fan of voucher programs.

Mostly, though, when it comes to to taxes I think that the discussion needs to be focused on spending.  And sacrifice.  The fact that we're fighting over who gets taxed and in what amounts is only successful in doing one thing: turning us against each other.  For Big Government, that's good news because it means we're not turning our attention towards the other details that add up to so much of what our government does and spends.

The truth is that, no matter how much we tax, we can't overcome our deficit woes with our current spending levels.  The only way we can ever begin to ease the pain of our deficits is by dramatically reducing our spending. We all need to agree to sacrifice to accomplish this.  Not just the rich.  Not just the poor.  Not just the middle class.  If eveyone is not on board, then we are doomed to fail.

So on this tax day, I ask you to not just look at the amount of the refund you may be getting.  Don't just look at the amount of money you had to fork over.  Also look at your legislators.  Reach out to them and let them know that you've had enough.  Demand spending cuts from them, and let them know that you're willing to sacrifice a little to help us all out in the future.

Tully Misses Key Points in His "Why Vote in the Primary" Column

A reader wrote to the Star's Matthew Tully and asked him to pen a column on why it important to vote in the primary.  Tully did so in his column today and, for the most part, I agree with the points he's made.  He did leave out a couple bits of information that I think are important to know about the primaries, though.

First, it is important to remember that the primary votes are actually closed party business.  They are open to the public and taxpayer funded, but when you vote in a primary you are declaring yourself to be a member of that party.  This isn't a problem for lifelong Democrats or Republicans.  For the majority of people that declare themselves independent of a party label, though, you are making a statement of affiliation by voting in a primary.  

Actually, it may even be illegal for you to vote in a primary in certain situations. Although impossible to track and enforce, you are legally only allowed to vote in a party's primary if you the majority of the votes you cast in the last general election were for that party, or if the majority of the votes you intend to cast in the next general election are for that party.  Again, this is not possible to enforce, but like using the honor box in a parking garage, it's just the right thing to do if you are a person of integrity.

Second, you are giving the parties a LOT of information about yourself when you vote in the primaries.  In a world where everyone throws a fit every time Facebook changes their privacy policies, you should consider the information that you are giving the political parties each time you vote.

No, they don't know exactly who you vote for when you step inside the ballot box.  But it is a matter of public record which party's ballot you pull, how often you vote, and which elections you vote in.  For the purposes of marketing their candidates to you most effectively, the parties consider this some of the most valuable information they have and they use it a lot.  And I mean a LOT.

Every one of you that has ever voted is on a list that the political parties has.  And you are categorized.  Based on the information above, the parties label you in many ways.  "Hard R."  "Soft D."  Whatever.  Did you ever wonder how your neighbor got one mailer for a candidate, and you got a completely different one?  It's based on your voting histories.  Your neighbor votes more, or votes less, or never votes in the primaries, or always pulls the same party's ballot, or never pulls the same parties ballot, or whatever.  

Based on that information, the parties know to send the mailer that bashes a candidate to the voter they deem most susceptible to that message.  And the happy message to the voter that will respond to that.  And the Hard Rs and Hard Ds probably don't get much money wasted on them for mailers at all, because their votes are so predictable that no mailer will swing them.  It's voter profiling, and it happens constantly.

Third, if you are a member or supporter of a third party, such as the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party, then you don't get to participate in the primaries at all.  The two major parities have crafted it this way through legislation.  They don't want the third parties to be able to participate in the primaries because they don't want the third parties to know who their voters are.  The voter profiling that the two major parties do constantly and completely rely on is a benefit they don't want to give to anyone else.  They abhor competition.

So think about this before you go vote in a primary.  I'm not telling you to not cast your primary vote, I'm just saying that you should be aware of what you are doing when you do. You are saying "I'm a Republican, world!" or "Hey, Public! I'm a Democrat!"  You are submitting yourself to a world of intense profiling.  You are opening yourself up in ways you probably didn't want to know.

(As an aside, if there is a school board race or other non-partisan vote taking place along with the primaries, then you can always ask for a ballot that only includes those non-partisan races.  By doing so, you can submit your vote in those important races without making a party declaration.)

No State Fair Train This Year? Boooo!!!

The Indiana State Fair Train is a pretty neat concept.  Since 1983, riders could board a train in Noblesville and enjoy a stress-free trip to our great State Fair.  Avoid the city traffic, avoid the parking, avoid the walk, and provide a unique experience for kids and families to add to their memories.  Many families have made it a tradition to ride the train to the State Fair each year.

But maybe not this year.  For the first year since the concept was introduced, reports the Star, their may be no State Fair train to ride this year.  Not because of a lack of popularity, but because of gas lines.  The Hoosier Heritage Port Authority has indicated that they believe that Citizens Energy has improperly installed some gas lines inder tracks and has ordered no trains travel on a segment of track because of it.

From the Star article:

The Hoosier Heritage Port Authority has issued an order that trains no longer may travel on the tracks south of 62nd Street after learning that the lines installed last fall at 62nd Street and 56th Street by Citizens Energy Group may not have been properly done. 

Citizens Energy disputes the claim that the lines were improperly installed and say they have been working with the Port Authority -- which operates the tracks on behalf of the city of Noblesville, town of Fishers and Hamilton County.

It would be a shame if the State Fair Train were unable to run.  Admittedly, I have not ridden the train since I was a child and due to the location of my home and unlikely to in the near future.  Still, I remember riding the train as a kid and remember thinking it was one of the neatest things ever.  The conductor even let some kids blow the train's whistle.  I hope that more kids have the opportunity to create a memory like mine, and that this situation is resolved before this year's Indiana State Fair.

Netflix has NOT Formed Pro-SOPA PAC

Several stories began to hit the news over the last 48 hours that DVD-mailing and TV/Movie streaming service Netflix has created a new PAC to support the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).  The story was circulating rapidly because of the enormous popularity of Netflix and the fact that SOPA is one of the most universally hated pieces of introduced legislation in recent memory.

Forbes and other are now reporting that the story is not true.  While Netflix has created a new PAC, it has nothing to do with supporting SOPA.

From the Forbes article:

Netflix has issued an official statement saying that neither SOPA nor PIPA is behind their formation of the PAC. 

“PACs are commonplace for companies that lead a big, growing market and Netflix is no exception. Our PAC is a way for our employees to support candidates that understand our business and technology.  It was not set up for the purpose of supporting SOPA or PIPA.  Instead, Netflix has engaged on other issues including network neutrality, bandwidth caps, usage based billing and reforming the Video Privacy Protection Act.”

This is good news.  I love me some Netflix.  I hate me some SOPA.  If a service that I loved as much as Netflix was going to support something I find as evil as SOPA then I was going to seriously have to consider dropping them.  For now, it looks like that's not going to be something I have to consider.

Broad Ripple Parking Garage Gets a Few More Days

Indianapolis Business Journal is reporting that the request by the Broad Ripple parking garage developers is going to get a few more days before a decision will be made in its request for a zoning waiver to allow the garage to be built four feet below flood level.

The garage has met with a slew of controversy since its introduction.  The developers have asked for an unusual location for a garage its size, have asked for the parking spaces to be smaller than normal, have asked for unusual allowances for retail spaces on its ground floor including difficult-to-navigate drive-thrus, and have asked for allowances for signage that will extend beyond traditionally allowed space above the sidewalks and streets.  Basically, the garage doesn't meet the requirements of any standing zoning regulations, but is hoping for an asinine number of zoning waivers to allow it to be built anyway.

Monday, the Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals was scheduled to meet to consider yet another request for this building to be allowed despite the law.  This time, the request was to allow the garage to be built several feet below the flood zone.

When Monday's request came before the Board of Appeals, though, they asked for more time.  Why?  Well, it's not exactly clear.  According to the IBJ report, it's so the garage's developers can meet with members of the Department of Public Works about the new levee to be constructed along the White River.  The levee, with should change the flood plain in the proposed garage area, still leaves the garage in below flood level, though.

From the IBJ article:

Keystone has argued that the levee system will provide enough protection from floods, even though the parking garage would be built on property that lies four feet below the flood plain. 

But the staff of the city’s Department of Metropolitan Developmentrecommended in a letter last week that parking garage proposal be reworked in order to raise its first floor above the flood plain.
Keystone officials have countered that idea would make the additional cost of the now-$15 million project too expensive. 

The 350-space parking garage at 6280 N. College Ave. would be partially financed with $6.3 million from parking meter revenue, which would normally flow into city coffers.

Keystone’s petition for a zoning variance will now be heard on April 17. However, it will be heard by a different set of board members than the ones that granted the delay Tuesday. The zoning board has three sets of members that attend weekly meetings.

I find the fact that the appeal will be heard by a different set of members interesting.  Like your ability to pick which township your small claims court hearing is heard in, I'm forced to wonder if the timing of this request didn't have as much to do with who would ultimately hear the request as it do with working out the details of the request.