I have officially decided to quit all my jobs and move to Geist.  Say what?!  That’s right no more radio talk show host, attorney, political commentator, teacher, none of that!  I am tossing all that out the window and moving into the biggest and most expensive home in Geist that’s available.

And when the seller and realtor look at me like I’m insane I am going to sue them and say my economic right to live where I want is being infringed upon.

Now I know what you’re thinking, “Abdul, how many martinis did you have before writing this?”  I can honestly tell you, not enough.  Because there is not enough gin, scotch, bourbon and rum to calm me down after looking at two measures being taken up tonight by the Indianapolis City-County Council Rules Committee.

One measure would prohibit housing discrimination based on source of income (not race, age, gender or sexual orientation).  The other would create a “homeless bill of rights” which would entitle the homeless to live in large camps of filth and squalor and limit the city’s ability to move those people to a better place.

Why are these items on the agenda?  Easy, because someone thinks they are doing good when in fact they are doing nothing but harm.

What good is it to move someone who gets section 8 housing into a downtown condo?  We all know what’s going to happen.   And if you really want to help the homeless, how is allowing them to live in deplorable conditions doing them any good?   Not to mention the potential public health problems.

But hey, if this is the new attitude that is showing up on the Council, which by the way this is being brought to you by the same people who posted the “hands up” don’t shoot signs at the Council seats, then why bother working.

We can all live in squalor together or at least sue the landlord who doesn’t want Section 8 housing on their property.

Time to go get a drink!

Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard tells me  that he is not running for a third term.

In his office Wednesday  afternoon Ballard said after eight years it was time to move on.  He says he was not phased by Tuesday’s Democratic victories in Marion County.  He cited polling that had his approval ratings in the 70s.

You can hear the Mayor’s entire interview here.

Leon-Tailored Audio: Greg Ballard Not Running for a Third term

Ballard says he is proud of the work he has done particularly with getting the city through the recession and work done to improve the city’s infrastructure.

A formal announcement will take place today at 12 at City Market.

You may not be aware of this, but Glenda Ritz  announced her re-election bid this week and Tuesday night she lost.

At an education forum on the west side of Indianapolis, Ritz told the “pro-public education” crowd that she was going to run again for the job.   And then Tuesday happened.

Although the Superintendent of Public Instruction wasn’t on the ballot, the tidal wave of GOP victories throughout Indiana basically took any hope Ritz and her supporters had a of stemming the waves of education reform and threw in the trash heap where it belonged.

Democratic Auditor candidate Mike Claytor,tied his wagon to the Glenda train, saying that as part of his watchdog duties he would protect her from the evil GOP.  He went down to a 36-point defeat.

A number of Statehouse candidates who ran on a “pro-public education” platform found themselves back where they started from at the beginning of the campaign, not in public office.

Perhaps most telling was in the Terre Haute area where Republican John Ford beat  Democrat Tim Skinner, who was the epitome of the anti-reform movement.

Even in the IPS school board  race “Hoosiers for Public Education” (otherwise known as the Indiana State Teachers Association) spent thousands of dollars trying to defeat reform-minded candidates Mary Ann Sullivan, Lanier Echols and Kelly Bentley  only to find themselves defeated.

Ritz cut the following ad trying to rally the troops, but it didn’t work.

Ritz and her allies accused Republicans of trying to destroy public education, but it didn’t work.

So if Ritz is going to go forward with re-election bid, she might want to try something that works, because it sure didn’t this time.

Although I spend most of my time focusing on state and local politics, I do enjoy the national scene as well, particularly when I see voters appear to contradict themselves.  At the same time they put Republicans in power, they vote for policies usually promoted by Democrats.

Thanks to my WIBC producer Matt Bair, we found a few examples from Tuesday…

Arkansas

• Voters elect Republicans  Asa Hutchinson to the Governor’s seat, Tom Cotton to the U.S. and elected four Republicans in all four contested House seats.  They also voted to raise the minimum wage from $6.25 to 7.50, 25 cents above the national average.

Alaska

• Voters elected Republican Dan Sullivan to the United States Senate, defeating incumbent Mark Begich by three points.  However, they also elected to raise minimum wage from $7.75 to $8.75 next year and to $9.75 in 2016 and they said yes to a measure that makes it legal for adults aged 21 and over to possess up to one ounce of pot and up to six plants.

Colorado

• Voters choose Republican Cory Gardner over Democrat Mark Udall, but reject, by 2-1, an amendment to the state constitution which would have defined a fetus as a person.  A similar result occurred in North Dakota.

Illinois

• In my home state, Republican billionaire Bruce Rauner defeats incumbent Pat Quinn for Governor, but voters approve an advisory referendum calling for the minimum wage to be increased from $8.25 to $10.00 dollars next year.

Massachusetts

• They elect a Republican Governor while at the same time  sign off on a measure that will allow workers to earn up to 40 hours of paid sick time in a given year, accruing one hour for every 30 hours on the clock. The ballot question’s supporters have said it will give the state the country’s strictest requirement for providing paid sick time to workers.

Nebraska

• Voters elected Republican Pete Ricketts to Governor by nearly 20 points.  Republican Ben Sasse  won in a landslide over his Dem opponent in the US Senate, but they also   agreed to gradually increase minimum wage to nine dollars an hour by 2016.

What are they thinking?

When Marion County Democratic Chairman Joel Miller tried to kick me out of a get ot the vote rally his party was having Saturday, I politely told him to go engage in self-copulation and he walked away.

Miller has never been one to have an endearing personality to begin with, but this time he seemed more annoying than usual.  And after doing some checking I can see why.  Democrats in Marion County are actually worried that they might lose the Sheriff’s race between incumbent John Layton and Republican challenger Emmitt Carney.

Layton, despite having huge advantages in both money and name ID, according to his own internal polls is statistically tied with Carney.   You can tell because he started running a negative ad against Carney.  And usually you don’t do that at this stage in the game unless there’s something wrong.

Carney has actually been running a relatively decent engagement campaign by showing up in places a lot of Republicans don’t usually go i.e. urban neighborhoods, and he has been well received.  Carney has also had billboards up in predominantly black neighborhoods.  (He’s African-American by the way)

Also throw in what is expected to be near record low turnout and anything can happen.  And that’s what Democrats are worried about.  I am already hearing that the finger pointing  is beginning.  (You can get more details in my political gossip column, The Cheat Sheet)

Now I still think the environment favors Layton simply because of the political demographics of Marion County, but if there’s a race to watch for an upset to happen, the Sheriff’s race could be it.

It is very rare that I  follow sports, much less write about sports figures.  But every once in a while, something pops up that I can’t help but scribble down a few thoughts.   And leave it to former NBA star Charles Barkley to make that possible.

During an interview with a radio station in Philadelphia,  Barkley made a comment regarding Seattle Seahawks quarterback Russell Wilson.   Wilson apparently has been getting grief from some of his fellow black players because he wasn’t considered “black” enough; either because they think he’s too close to management or he doesn’t speak English like it was his second language.

I am not making this up.

CNN quotes Barkley as saying  “There are a lot of black people who are unintelligent, who don’t have success.  It’s best to knock a successful black person down ’cause they’re intelligent, they speak well, they do well in school, and they’re successful. It’s crabs in a barrel. … We’re the only ethnic group that says, ‘hey, if you go to jail, it gives you street cred.’ “

He then went on to say, “For some reason we’re brainwashed to think if you’re not a thug or an idiot, you’re not black enough. If you go to school, make good grades, speak intelligent and don’t break the law, you’re not a good black person. It’s a dirty dark secret. I hate to bring white people into our crap, but as a black person, we all go through it when you’re successful.”

Barkley’s comments have caused a firestorm in black media,  mainly because he is correct and the truth hurts.

I can speak about this from personal experience.  For some reason, there is a segment of the black population that thinks a good job, good diction and good credit are clear signs that you have been corrupted by the white man. And don’t even entertain the idea of being married to the person with whom you decide to procreate before you do the procreating.

There is an old Chris Rock joke that says if you’re black and get your M.A. or M.S. degree you’re a pariah, but get out of jail and they’ll throw you a party.

This is sad, but unfortunately it’s true.   I had no idea that being well-spoken and well-educated meant you were “acting white”.  I always thought it meant you were acting like an intelligent human being.

Hat tip to Sir Charles.

When did “work” turn into a four-letter word?

Did I miss something? I thought working, so you could be independent and not have to rely on others, was a good thing; apparently not according my colleague Erika Smith at the Indy Star.

Smith penned a column about changes that are coming to Indiana’s food stamp program.   The big change is that if you are an able-bodied adult with no kids, you can only get food stamps for three months out of a three-year period, unless you’re working or in a job training program for at least 20 hours a week.

The federal government had waived work requirement for Indiana, but the state decided not to reapply. However, if the economy heads south, it can.   It’s estimated this would impact about 65,000 of the 877,000 people on food stamps to the tune of about $102 million annually.

Smith laments this change, saying we’re picking on the poor, and because there’s no living wage, there’s no incentive for people to go to work. Here’s an incentive to work, survival. If you want to eat, you’ll work.

Work is also not just good for body, but it’s good for the soul. Remember your first paycheck and how you felt that it was money that you earned and the feeling of independence that came with it?   I still have a photocopy of my first check from my first full-time broadcaster job.

And on top of that, if you don’t give people a reason to get off the dole, they never will. It’s the family member who stays on your couch and keeps telling you that eventually he will look for a job. If you don’t light a fire under his rear end, eventually he will take root.

And by the way, this isn’t the first time the state has had to light the fire under folks. A couple years ago, the Department of Workforce Development changed the rules so that when you filed for unemployment you had to report to Work One center on a regular basis to prove you were looking for work.   Guess what? A few thousand people dropped off the unemployment rolls. Imagine that. Even in the latest HIP 2.0 proposed expansion the state has incorporated a jobs element so individuals can become self-sufficient.

So requiring someone who is able-bodied to either get a job or let the state help them find one in order to get assistance is not a bad thing. And yes, we should look at removing some of those barriers that keep those who made a mistake decades ago from finding stable work. But don’t tell me that it’s better for an able-bodied person to get government assistance rather than gainful employment.

The last time I checked, welfare and food stamps were supposed to act as trampolines, not hammocks.  Work is not a four-letter word, but lazy is.

I think I’ve found a possible answer to some of Indiana’s local government money problems, video gaming machines.

Allow me to explain.  You see, I was in my home state of Illinois this past weekend taking care of the usual legal business, and while there I spent some time Friday night in one of my favorite watering holes in downtown Springfield, a place called the Brewhaus.  I discovered it when I was a graduate student in the mid-90s.  It was a classic dive bar; gross bathrooms, funny smelling carpet,  the booths that weren’t in the best shape.  But the alcohol was cheap and the people were awesome.

Fast forward nearly 20 years and I noticed some major changes.  New furniture, the old carpet was replaced by wooden floors, you could use the bathroom without wearing a protective HAZMAT suit and they had video poker machines.   Yes, video poker machines that actually paid out.  Because in Illinois, video gaming  in bars is perfectly legal and has been since 2009.  And it’s not just the bars and taverns that benefit by using the proceeds to fix up the place.

According to the Illinois Gaming Board, over the last 12 months,  video gaming has generated hundreds of millions in revenue and $180 million in taxes over the last 12 months for state and local governments, $150 million for the state and $30 million for the locals.  And in the land of tax caps and growing needs, video gaming in bars  just might be what Indiana’s local governments need.   The state already allows pull tabs in bars so this really wouldn’t be an expansion of gaming, just allowing another form to take place on the premises.     And you don’t have to worry about minors being exposed to gaming, since they aren’t supposed to be in a bar in the first place.

By the way, electronic gaming machines are already out there.  According to the Indiana Gaming Commission, since 2011, more than 5,300 illegal gaming machines, i.e. “Cherrymasters” , have been confiscated, either by seizure or voluntary compliance.

Of course a lot of this would fall under whether putting video gaming in bars would be “expansion”, some of us would argue that it isn’t since pull tabs are already allowed, I know how my friends in the Legislature operate.  And the impact on the casinos and horse tracks would have to be figured out as well.

At the very least we can all bet, pardon the pun, that it would make for an interesting discussion.

Now that a federal judge has ruled Marion’s County system of selecting judges is unconstitutional, it’s time to come up with a new system to pick the individuals who impartially dispense justice.

For those of you who aren’t aware, under the old system Democrats and Republicans got to pick the number of judges based on the spots that needed to be filled, it was 16 total in the last election.  The candidates ran in the primary and the top eight Rs and Ds got to fill those spots.

I always thought that was a bit odd, however to the political operative in me it makes sense that the two parties figured out a way to protect their candidates.

Now that this system is on the way out the door, might I suggest a new one?

I have never believed judges should be elected.  No offense, but I am not a fan of someone who is trained in the law to be subject to the whims of some angry folks come election time.  But, the reality is that a purely merit-based system likely isn’t going to happen, so might I suggest a compromise; a merit-based system with a retention component.

The way it would work is a bi-partisan panel would be appointed by the Governor based on recommendations by the political parties and the panel would appoint the judges.  To keep things even, no party could have a majority of appointees.  And the candidates must have practiced law at least seven years.  Once appointed the judges would serve six-year terms and then be subject to retention by the voters.  It is somewhat similar to the system used to appoint Appellate judges here in Indiana.

I think that would make for a decent compromise. The best and the brightest get appointed.  The political parties get their say.  And the voters get the final word.  What could be more judicial in approach and practice?

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller has caught a lot of grief over the last few months for  defending Indiana’s marriage statute.   Because he defended the statute which defined marriage as one man and one woman, some people think his motivation was that he was opposed to same-sex marriage.

In all the time I written about the Attorney General’s office defense of the marriage statute, I never asked Zoeller what his opinion was, because to be  frank it didn’t matter.   He is an attorney and the State of Indiana is his client and absent some bizarre circumstances, the Attorney General has a duty to defend the law, regardless of what he thinks about it.

And just like he carried out his obligation to defend the prior marriage statute, guess what, Zoeller will defend the new law which says same-sex marriage is legal in Indiana.  He’s already instructed the County Clerks to start issuing marriage licenses.  I am willing to bet money his office has been going through volumes of Indiana Code as it applies to marriage to inform lawmakers how the new rules will apply to same-sex couples, because that is what the Attorney General does.

As lawyers, we have a duty to defend our clients within all ethical bounds.  When we start picking and choosing which cases we will and won’t do simply because we have a different ideological bent than the client, we start to run into problems.  I would argue it would be ground for malpractice if he didn’t.

When Zoeller defended the state’s marriage statute, he was doing his job and now that there is new statute, guess what, he will keep doing his job.