Got wood? A Twitter firestorm about Goodwood, Bevin -- and nothing at all.

Read carefully before jumping to a conclusion. We'll never make progress with sticky wickets if we don't examine them, because if the pitch isn't wet, the wicket isn't sticky.

The scene shown above (Gahan for Mayor signage in shop windows on Market Street) preceded by at least three weeks last evening's Twitter slug-fest over Goodwood Brewing's fundraiser for Matt Bevin, Kentucky's governor.

The question: Do independent business operators, whether Goodwood's Ted Mitzlaff, or New Albany's Terry Middleton and Jimmy Gaetano, have the right to support, endorse and display the signage of a particular political candidate?

Of course they do.

Will doing so offend customers?

Maybe. It might also attract customers, the point being that such a calculation is the independent business owner's (or ownership's) decision to make. I understand there might be numerous, more extreme counter examples -- for instance, what if Nazis are the fundraisers in question?

But in these two instances, the examples are not extreme. Both Bevin and Gahan are members of legally chartered political entities, and both came to power by means of (generally) fair elections. Nazis, Communists, personality cults and gay wedding cake refusenik bakeries are other cases for other, more in-depth and wider ranging discussions.

I've met Mitzlaff only once. He's far more of a capitalist than me, and quite capable of running the numbers. Consequently, there's nothing to see here.

Everyone pays lip service to capitalism, but I'm not sure how many Americans have a clear understanding of street corner capitalism at its most basic, as when they insist there somehow exists a "right" to better service at a chain restaurant drive-through, or demand that local government gift them with a Trader Joe's.

Do grassroots independent business owners/entrepreneurs have a right to attract or repel customers as they please, by taking "sides" politically when those sides are regarded as legitimate by most of us even if we disagree with specific tenets?

I think so.

If there's a backlash, it's also their right to handle it in their own way, at their own speed. As Dan Canon pointed out, Goodwood's response to Twitter criticism was to copy and paste, again and again.

Goodwood does not discriminate on any grounds including, but not limited to, race, religion, sexual orientation, political beliefs. We are open to all regardless of political affiliation. We foster an atmosphere where ideas may be expressed, whether we are in agreement or not.

Yes, Goodwood loses style points for being robotic and avoiding individual replies, but my internal calculation revolves around this: Does the non-discrimination disclaimer ring true?

In my past dealings with Goodwood, irrespective of my feelings about the company's beer (generally favorable), has the brewery ever done anything to contradict the non-discrimination disclaimer, as copied and pasted?

Not to my knowledge, at least insofar as I've been aware -- and note that owner Mitzlaff's right-of-center political orientation is not exactly a secret.

Does holding a fundraiser for a sitting elected governor contradict Goodwood's non-discrimination disclaimer?

Is it a good idea for a business owner like Terry Middleton in downtown New Albany to take sides in the mayor's race?

Well, that's their calculation to make, and it's up to their customers to decide. Some of their customers have decided, to judge by Tweets directed against Goodwood.

It's as simple as that, and so this is one bandwagon I'm not hopping aboard, primarily because there are far more important issues.

For seven years I sat on the board of the Brewers of Indiana Guild, and -- surprise! -- my fellow board members represented a broad range of standpoints. Not all of them had tattoos and beards (in fact there were too few women and minorities, but I believe this imbalance has started shifting since I departed).

Some were right, some left. There were Clinton voters and Trump voters, hippies and button-downs. My takeaway is that for those of us preaching diversity, we must be prepared to live diversity in the real world -- or else, we're hypocrites. 

---

As a postscript, regular readers already will have located the main point as it pertains locally, this being to Terry and Jimmy posting partisan political signage downtown. I just wish they understood that they're privileged in being able to do so, because other downtown business owners like them, who might like to post White, Seabrook or Coffey signs, won't do so because they know from experience that Gahan's allegiance-obsessed City Hall would harass them.

Such harassment plainly occurred in 2015, and yet these two indies remain blissfully unaware. I acknowledge their "right" to be oblivious, but find it annoying all the same.

---

Democratic mayoral candidate David White understands that change begins with a whole lotta scrubbing, and NA Confidential advocates just such a deep civic cleansing. 

After eight years on the job, Mayor Jeff Gahan's list of stunning "achievements" is long, indeed: tax increases, budgetary hide 'n' seek, self-deification, daily hypocrisy, public housing takeover, non-transparency, pay-to-play for no-bid contracts, bullying city residents and bullying city employees. Eight years is enough. It's time to drain Gahan's swamp, flush his ruling clique and take this city back from Gahan's Indy-based special interest donors. 

NA Confidential supports David White for Mayor in the Democratic Party primary, with voting now through May 7. 

With Duggins' NAHA command bunker silent throughout, city council attorney Stein answers the question about public housing residents and political signs.

City council Democrats remain comatose, but we have an answer to a question that arose a month ago.

For background, first this on February 22.

Do New Albany Housing Authority residents enjoy freedom of speech as it pertains to political campaign yard signs?

The Green Mouse has learned that earlier this week a resident at the New Albany Housing Authority planted a David White for Mayor yard sign in his yard.

It wasn't as big as this one, but still.

Then this on February 23.

Political yard signs at NAHA? As DemoDisneyDixieDickeycrats doze, Al Knable seeks an answer.

Once again, Knable takes the first step on an issue pertaining to human rights and freedoms.

It isn't known whether noted human rights campaigner Greg Phipps had anything to say on Thursday about free speech on the New Albany Housing Authority campus, or if he was joined in his concerns by fellow Democrats Bob Caesar, Pat McLaughlin and Matt Nash.

Then again, not one of them has had the first coherent thing to say about NAHA since the inception of Jeff Gahan's hostile takeover of public housing in 2017.

At tonight's council meeting, Knable returned to the topic and queried council attorney Amy Stein, who revealed the results of her research: NAHA has the legal ability to decree that signs in common areas are either allowed, or not allowed. NAHA cannot allow some and prohibit others. However, as it pertains specifically to political signs, the private space of NAHA residents trumps the commons, and NAHA cannot prevent residents from placing political signs in their windows.

The same question was submitted to the Human Rights Commission, and it isn't clear whether it will or won't discuss the issue at the HRC's next meeting.

Thanks to Knable and Stein for their diligence.

Political yard signs at NAHA? As DemoDisneyDixieDickeycrats doze, Al Knable seeks an answer.

Yesterday at NA Confidential:

Do New Albany Housing Authority residents enjoy freedom of speech as it pertains to political campaign yard signs?

Consequently I've been scolded by the Green Mouse for missing Thursday evening's city council meeting. According to at-large councilman Al Knable:

At last night’s council meeting I asked our (council) attorney to confer with city attorney and NAHA to at least obtain a stated policy and compare to existing statutes/precedents. Stay tuned.

Once again, Knable takes the first step on an issue pertaining to human rights and freedoms.

It isn't known whether noted human rights campaigner Greg Phipps had anything to say on Thursday about free speech on the New Albany Housing Authority campus, or if he was joined in his concerns by fellow Democrats Bob Caesar, Pat McLaughlin and Matt Nash.

Then again, not one of them has had the first coherent thing to say about NAHA since the inception of Jeff Gahan's hostile takeover of public housing in 2017.

Principle?

That's a transitory and malleable thing when you're a DemoDisneyDixieDickeycrat in New Albany.

Do New Albany Housing Authority residents enjoy freedom of speech as it pertains to political campaign yard signs?

The Green Mouse has learned that earlier this week a resident at the New Albany Housing Authority planted a David White for Mayor yard sign in his yard.

It wasn't as big as this one, but still.

The resident promptly was told by maintenance (wait -- doesn't councilman Matt Nash now work in maintenance at NAHA?) to remove the sign. He asked if he could put the sign on his door or in the window, and learned that they'd have to go ask the esteemed Gauleiter Duggins first.

Scanning the Interwebz, it appears this controversy isn't uncommon.

Another issue which has not been discussed in great detail by the courts is the regulation of political signs in front yards in a community governed by a homeowners association. In general, the First Amendment protections do not extend to private residences governed by a homeowners association. If the regulations governing the display of political signs involve a contract between two private parties and the government is not involved, then the regulations will be valid. If, on the other hand, the government is an actor, then a complete ban on political signs will probably be invalid. The Washington Supreme Court recently held that a local housing authority could not prohibit the posting of political signs on the doors to residences in a public housing complex.

There was a case with yard signs at a public housing site in Massachusetts.

Political signs can only be displayed in a tenant's interior window or spaces where a tenant has exclusive control," (management) said. "So we asked Mr. Rose to remove the signs, he didn't, and our maintenance department did and returned them."

But Harvey Silverglate, a civil liberties litigator, said Rose would prevail if he took the matter to court.

"That rule prohibiting political signs would be declared unconstitutional," he said. "It may be permissible for the housing authority to limit the size of the signs or the exact placement, but a blanket prohibition is too broad and too restrictive of speech."

And one from Michigan.

Public housing residents remove campaign signs after eviction threats

Public housing residents in Traverse City have removed campaign signs after officials threatened to evict them. The Traverse City Housing Commission took action after some residents displayed signs in favor of a public vote on buildings taller than 60 feet. It's a question on Tuesday's ballot.

The housing director says the signs violate the lease. But some disagree.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan sent a letter to the commission saying the ban on displaying window signs without approval is violation of the first amendment.

One local attorney said this.

I don't know the precise answer to that question, but I can't imagine an outright ban that would pass constitutional muster.

Another added:

Haven’t researched the nuts and bolts for Indiana, but a landlord cannot prohibit political speech. They can impose some reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. Displaying a political sign from the inside of your unit should be fine.

As of this precise moment, it isn't know whether the NAHA resident in question has received an answer. Oddly, if there's a policy prohibiting yard signs at the housing authority, it would prevent a sitting mayor like Jeff Gahan from commissioning Duggins to compel NAHA population to "voluntarily" displaying Gahan's signs as a form of coerced adoration.

Maybe Duggins could threaten them with a TASER.

#GoldenOldies

Howard Zinn, Mitch Daniels and "the role of history in education, politics and scholarship."

(Mitch) Daniels will probably not get this, as the current President of Purdue University has no academic qualifications to even be appointed into this position; as Detmer notes, “[Daniels] did not have a Ph.D. or comparable research degree; he had no teaching experience; and he had never published any peer reviewed scholarly research.”
-- author David Detmer

Neither does the much celebrated Floyd County Historian possess such an academic background, but I digress. He's busy measuring the distance between condiment bottles at Team Gahan's mess tent.

Zinn's purported sin lies in his insistence that United States history must be viewed as an exercise of power, money or both -- and it has, along with sizable dollops of religious superstition and plain delusion.

But we'd be mistaken to limit the gaze to Republicans and purported right-wingers given over to censorship. Adam Dickey's beloved Joe Donnelly likely would be a half-step behind Daniels, if that.

The money. It's all about the money.

The Battle Over History and Howard Zinn, by Kim Scipes (CounterPunch)

It is rare to get an intelligent, well-sourced and coherent discussion of issues today such as the role of history in education, politics and scholarship, but David Detmer of Purdue University Northwest has provided such with his new book, Zinnophobia: The Battle over History in Education, Politics and Scholarship. Detmer has very carefully dismembered much of the right wing’s “intellectual” assault on critical scholarship.

Dr. Detmer, Professor of Philosophy, has used the attack on the historical work of the late Howard Zinn as his entrée to the discussion. And Detmer starts close to home, discussing then-Indiana governor and current President of Purdue University, Mitch Daniels’, efforts to ensure that Zinn’s work not be allowed in any Indiana classroom. In February 2010, while governor, Daniels sent e-mails to several subordinates, “to make sure that a book he did not like, Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States, would not be ‘in use anywhere in Indiana’” (p. 17). Detmer used e-mails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act by the Associated Press (AP) to examine Daniels’ deplorable behavior.

Daniels’ problem with Zinn? The heart of it, from a Daniels’ e-mail, “It is a truly execrable, anti-factual piece of disinformation that misstates American history on every page” (18).

Once the e-mails were published by the AP, Daniels and members of his administration tried to mitigate the ensuing controversy by trying obfuscation. To divert the attention on his efforts, Daniels referred to “Respected scholars and communicators of all ideologies agree that the work of Howard Zinn was irredeemably slanted, and unsuited for teaching to school children” (19).

Detmer has none of it: he carefully discusses the charges and countercharges and, in this book, also examines the work of his critics, both those Daniels relies on as well as others, to examine the quality of right-wing commentary on Zinn’s thinking and his research.

He starts with Daniels: “Notice, first, that in the initial emails, Daniels offers no evidence, argument or reasoning of any kind in support or his harsh judgment of Zinn’s work. Nor does he engage Zinn’s text—no page numbers or specific claims or analyses are cited.” Obviously, Detmer is not impressed: “we demand much more of our freshman students in the papers they write for our introductory courses” (21).

Daniels will probably not get this, as the current President of Purdue University has no academic qualifications to even be appointed into this position; as Detmer notes, “[Daniels] did not have a Ph.D. or comparable research degree; he had no teaching experience; and he had never published any peer reviewed scholarly research.” However, Daniels had an advantage with those who hired him: “the trustees [of Purdue University] owed their own positions as trustees to him—as governor, he had appointed eight of them to the Board of Trustees, and had re-appointed the other two” (17) But despite whatever he’s learned since becoming Purdue’s president in January 2013, it is difficult to imagine a more damning condemnation from a Faculty member, comparing Daniels’ work unfavorably to that required of freshman students in an introductory course ...

In the end, Bill Maher is irrelevant. Read a damn book, will you?

Don't you even start on me. I've had this poster since I was in high school. It is intended as metaphor, suggesting thoughtful repose. 

I watch almost no television of any sort. To me, life is short -- and television is a vaster wasteland than ever. Meanwhile there is writing to do, books to read and plenty of music for inspiration.

It happens that I used to pay sporadic attention to Bill Maher, though his name has appeared at NA Confidential only a handful of times since 2012 or 2013. I'm not certain why I stopped viewing clips of Maher's on social media; perhaps because my social media feeds lean left, and fellow "liberals" decided Maher was kryptonite.

Either way, there's nothing conscious about it, at least on my part. Maher remains entertaining and instructive in my estimation, and at some point, he drifted off my radar. I've probably been busy reading.

Lately I've seen several instances of disavowal on the part of left-leaning friends, and this has provoked a mild curiosity. I do recall charges of Islamophobia; duly noted.

I can't help observing that given our vacuous, late-night, sound-bite culture of skin-deep irrelevance, it's hard to grasp why it matters much. We're getting our news from late night comedians and talk show hosts.

This is the part that should be bothering you.

Why Liberals Need Bill Maher’s Tough Love, by Matt Wilstein (Daily Beast)

Many progressives have written off the ‘Real Time’ host, but his importance to the late-night landscape should not be dismissed.

With the constant barrage of bad news coming out of the White House these days, sometimes it seems like the late-night shows can barely keep up. Night after night, hosts like Stephen Colbert, Seth Meyers, and Trevor Noah struggle to find what they hope is a unique comedic point of view on the latest Donald Trump outrage.

But in the year and a half since Trump was elected president, Bill Maher has taken a different approach. Yes, there is still plenty of anti-Trump material in his weekly Real Time monologues, but unlike pretty much every other late-night host on TV, he spends almost equal time holding liberals to account.

One of the biggest criticisms of these types of political comedy shows, even before the Trump era, was that they are simply preaching to their like-minded choir. Just as our Facebook pages reinforce the positions we hold dear, our late-night shows do the same. This is part of what has aided The Late Show’s sprint to the top of the ratings race over the past 18 months. Yes, the news is terrifying, but if we can laugh about it with Colbert at the end of the day, maybe things will be OK.

Real Time with Bill Maher has a different effect, and in turn has been alienating liberals more and more in recent months. But perhaps Maher is performing a more important service for Democrats than they realize. Even if his critiques often come off as “This is why Trump won” moralizing, there is value in acknowledging that Republican incompetence does not negate Democratic mistakes ...

Right on, Dwyane Wade: "We will not just SHUT up and dribble."

If the degree of free speech allowed hereabouts pertains to pay grade, there are quite a few old, rich white guys I'd like to see shut up.

Etan Thomas: Now a Different Kind of Player, by Sopan Deb (NYT)

With the advent of social media, politically active athletes seem more common now than ever before.

Indeed, N.F.L. players kneeling during the national anthem, a movement started by Colin Kaepernick and echoed by others, became a cultural flash point last season after President Trump aimed his ire on the movement, accusing them of disrespecting the troops.

But before Kaepernick, there was Etan Thomas, an N.B.A. forward who played for nine seasons, seven with the Washington Wizards. Thomas built a reputation for himself as a socially conscious activist and poet, including frequently speaking out against the Iraq War and the federal government’s response to Hurricane Katrina. (Of course decades before Thomas, there were activist athletes like Bill Russell, Jim Brown and Muhammad Ali.)

In his latest book, “We Matter: Athletes and Activism,” due out on March 6, Thomas interviewed a number of basketball staples, including Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Dwyane Wade of the Miami Heat, about the consequences of publicly voicing opinions off the court or playing field. He also talked to figures like Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, and Ted Leonsis, who owns three sports franchises, including the Washington Wizards, about their perspectives.

Perhaps most notably, Thomas spoke to family members of Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, Terence Crutcher and Philando Castile — all victims of shootings that received widespread attention from prominent athletes.

I spoke to Thomas by phone about the recent comments from conservative commentator Laura Ingraham about LeBron James and Kevin Durant, his experience sharing a locker room with Michael Jordan and why he wrote the book. This is an excerpt from that conversation.

In fact, the intersection of athletics and politics is a constant, here and abroad. If you don't see it, perhaps your eyes are shut.

Pep Guardiola’s yellow ribbon ties football up in knots over true enemies, by Barney Ronay (The Guardian)

Thirty years on, the basic premise of Football Against the Enemy illustrates a different world where the game was a point of resistance against control and oppression

This summer it will be 30 years since an event that helped inspire what is still one of the most deliciously moreish football books in English.

Football Against the Enemy is a collection of excellent, energetically compiled essays by Simon Kuper. It can seem a little dated in parts now, postcards from a world still shrouded in pre-internet mist but in a week of apparently irresolvable moral confusion over Pep Guardiola, yellow ribbons and all that, it also feels like a point of illuminating contrast.

At which point the pages rustle, the screen dissolves and we are back at the 1988 European Championship. It is hard to get a sense of the unsettling emotional power of the Netherlands’ defeat of West Germany, the feelings of delighted surprise as a fine team saw off one of the more sharp-elbowed West Germanys.

Ruud Gullit ran the semi-final in Hamburg, striding about with such regal ease you half expected to look down and notice he had spent the last 90 minutes playing in tails, top hat and wing collar. Marco van Basten scored the winner at the end. People in Amsterdam threw bicycles in the air shouting “we’ve got our bikes back”, a reference to the transport-thieving crimes of the Nazi occupation during the second world war.

Kuper, then in his early twenties, notes all this with an amused but also quietly brutal note of fascination. Asked about the morality of holding this generation of West German footballers to account for the sins of the past, one Dutch celebrant notes: “Well, they had the wrong ancestors” ...

Council approves 1Si's funding request. Greg Phipps disagrees, and Dan Coffey denounces free speech. In tonight's performance, the role of Jeff Gahan was played by Mike Hall.

This post has been edited to reflect Pat McLaughlin's vote against A-17-02 (1Si funding. Apologies for missing this; thanks to Greg Phipps for the correction. 

Earlier this evening, I read both of my prepared statements during their allotted time.

(1 of 2) My comments at tonight's city council meeting, during the public hearing for A-17-02 (funding for One Southern Indiana).

(2 of 2) My comments at tonight's city council meeting, during public speaking time prior to A-17-02 (funding for One Southern Indiana).

Bob Caesar looked greatly pained. What if the cool kids and the in-crowd held him responsible for the words of wild-eyed, dissenting, anti-establishment types like me?

Naturally there wasn't the slightest doubt that A-17-02 would pass, with $30,000 going to 1Si for vocational training initiatives, although Citizen Cassidy raised an excellent point. He asked why 1Si's tithing hat is not extended in the direction of Floyd County government, too.

It was gratifying to have Greg Phipps join me in defending the virtue of liberal arts and humanities majors. Phipps and council president Pat McLaughlin cast their votes against A-17-02.

1Si's Wendy Dant Chesser was in attendance, and when asked by Phipps to clarify, she denied speaking with disdain about art history majors. I have two things to say about this.

First: I wasn't the only LSI class member in attendance to come away with the same impression as mine. She did as she did.

Second: If Dant Chesser's objective (then as now) is to urge the expansion of vocational training as well as encouraging college degrees in areas of most interest to employers, this is fine and dandy, but is it really necessary to mention the college degrees one shouldn't pursue?

Put another way, if her argument is sound, why even tell the anecdote of the embittered art history major and risk being misread?  

Consequently, I stand by my statements.

Of course, no council meeting would be complete without Dan Coffey going full gonzo reactionary.

In Coffey's schoolboy zeal to agree "100%" with Dant Chesser, who would detour down the alley lickety-split if she saw Coffey approaching her on the street, he announced with agitation (paraphrasing) that taxpayers simply shouldn't be allowed to come to council meetings and use the podium as a "bully pulpit" in order to say what they think.

So much for the Constitution.

Say it ain't so, Adam -- Dan Coffey opposed to free speech?

Well, DUH, but of course this doesn't stop Jeff "Dear Leader" Gahan from parleying with the lapsed Wizard in pursuit of emptied public housing blocks accompanied by a fully remodeled Riverview Towers, where the barbecued bologna always hits the fan at just the right time.

Just imagine a public housing tenant packing his or her belongings in a Kroger shopping cart on the way to the rail siding, and seeing Gahan's face staring back with an $8,000 reminder to eat healthy and visit the aquatic center often.

But I digress.

Funniest of all was Al Knable's brief reply to Coffey. Knable upheld the wisdom of allowing taxpayers to speak even when they disagree with Dan Coffey, and clarified the meaning of "bully pulpit" as originally used by Teddy Roosevelt, to which Coffey nodded vigorously and insisted he knew the meaning of a concept he'd butchered just moments before.

No wonder Coffey and Gahan have been joined at the hip for so long.

Neither of them has made a mistake, ever.  

---

TWITTER LOG for MONDAY, JUNE 5 (from start to finish)

I've returned to city council after a hiatus. So far. too busy reading prepared statements to tweet. If anything happens ...

Mayor Hall is here. His attendance is stellar. Except he isn't the mayor.

A-17-02 One Southern Indiana's $30K for vocational training advancement. Caesar vouched for 1Si's integrity v.v. $

A-17-02 Phipps grills Dant Chesser about the value of liberal arts education. Bravo.

A-17-02 Coffey says what we all know: it's good to have all sorts of jobs.

Coffey denounces public speakers who use council time to exercise free speech. Somewhere @DeafGahan is smiling.

5 minutes later, Coffey is still talking. He doesn't understand why such a great idea should be discussed #OhDonald

Coffey thinks A-17-02 will transform the planet.

Coffey now says of course he knew what "bully pulpit" meant when he misused it moments ago. Of course. Ha ha.

A-17-02 is going to be approved unanimously. Even I'm not sure why the questions have broken out. But that IS why I spoke.

Phipps opposes A-17-02. Bully for him. Final score 8-1 7-2 in favor of the 1Si Oligarchs.

(Edit: McLaughlin also voted against)

A-17-03 New police car funding. 9-0 in favor.

3rd reading on the last two, meaning they both got final approval.

R-17-08 Lots of abatements and stress relievers for Beach Mold and Tool. Caesar's mayoral campaign is in full swing.

Duggins thanks everyone. His mayoral campaign is in full tumescence, too. So many engorged members, so little time.

R-17-08 The choreography is awesome for what probably be another unanimous vote. The ritual can be fascinating even w/o martinis.

R-17-08 Vote is 9-0 in favor. Now who'll take credit for this in 2019? Caesar? Duggins? Nod?

Adjourned. Thank you.

ON THE AVENUES: Never preach free speech to a yes man; it wastes your time and annoys Team Gahan.

ON THE AVENUES: Never preach free speech to a yes man; it wastes your time and annoys Team Gahan.

A weekly column by Roger A. Baylor.

By now, most of us should be aware that social media simultaneously clarifies and distorts reality.

Our species hasn’t evolved to the point of true “virtual” enlightenment, and as I wait patiently in the queue, it has been my practice to block, censor and unfriend only with the utmost reluctance.

I’m a proud leftist, but far more so than any single political perspective, freedom of speech is bedrock for me. I’m desirous that my social media feeds be a place where differing perspectives are represented, as objectionable in manner of presentation as they sometimes are.

Communication is the goal, and there needs to be more of it, not less.

At the city council meeting of Thursday, February 16, my non-agenda public speaking time was devoted to reading a prepared statement written by the Bookseller, and reprinted here.

12 years after we began advocating for creating a pedestrian-friendly and commerce-enhancing reversion to 2-way traffic patterns in Midtown and Downtown, it looks like we may get it.

It is unfortunate that we had to wait through 3 consecutive mayoral terms before we saw any move toward rational flow patterns and traffic-calming. The 3 Democrats who have held the mayor's office during that time EACH expressed full support for our ideas, but still it took 12 years. One might even wonder if those three men were sincere in telling us they supported it.

As we await this multi-million dollar repaving project, however, there still seems to be a disconnect with regard to pedestrian safety. Yes, 2-way patterns will bring immediate benefits to pedestrian safety, but more can be done.

We would like to ask the council to come walking with us along Spring Street someday soon. We can start at the county line and work our way to the City-County building. During that walk, we will see the vast stretches of that street where no pedestrian can cross safely.

Let's call it a "feasibility study," if you will, with a goal to selecting the six or seven intersections where safety and traffic-calming can be effected with the installation of 4-way stop signs and crosswalks. In fact, there may be lighted traffic signals that could easily be removed and replaced with 4-way stop installations.

Who knows? After walking with us, you may disagree. But please consider making the walk. As elected public officials, you are in the best position to advocate for your constituents and we'd love to have you as allies.

Two councilman quickly indicated their willingness to walk, but by the following morning, it had emerged that this statement caused consternation for a friend on Facebook.

He took a passive/aggressive approach of maligning those unnamed and persistently squeaky local wheels who presumably can’t ever accept the necessity of underachieving incrementalism, choosing instead to agitate incessantly for more intelligent and comprehensive efforts.

Included in the post was a meme depicting Gilda Radner’s famous Saturday Night Live character with the words, “It’s Always Something.”

This seemed to offer a good opportunity to engage my friend in substantive conversation about pressing community issues like pedestrian safety, and so I gently reminded him that not so long ago, we’d undertaken a yard sign campaign together, one designed at answering naysayers of the time with the word “Yes” (signifying progress), as opposed to "No" (to new taxes).

Then I innocently observed that the term “yes man” can mean different things to different people.

Oops.

Shortly thereafter the social media conversation was expunged, and I was unfriended. Now the consternation was mine, as it dawned on me that ideas are mere bacteria when it comes to a germophobe's field of vision.

---

I’ve referred to non-agenda speaking time at city council meetings, and perhaps this is something with which not all readers are familiar.

Those citizens wishing to collectively address New Albany’s assembled city councilmen (there are no women) within the body’s native third-floor habitat have two opportunities to do so at each bimonthly gathering.

Near the beginning of a council meeting, citizens may speak about items adorning the evening's written agenda. Examples of fair game in this context include ordinances, resolutions, appointments and committee assignments.

At the very end of the meeting comes a second opportunity for public comment about non-agenda items. Some years back, this slot was moved from the meeting's start to its end owing to the disturbing propensity of taxpayer advocates and “potty police” using their allotted soapbox moments to fiscal-bait our elected officials.

This specific threat to the serenity of council representatives has long since abated, primarily because a generation of the civic-minded seems to have passed from the scene. Some died, some moved, and others probably lost the will to fight the inevitable fixes as they arise, one after the next, like the Asteroids video game of ancient times.

Those watchdogs were old-school, and whether I agreed with them or not, their dogged determination was admirable. They intended to be heard, come what may, and refused to go away until their opportunity was exercised.

Probably few of us are born with the chutzpah necessary to saunter into a public meeting and exercise our right to communicate with those representing us. It’s been a long and excruciating learning curve for me, one that remains ongoing.

What’s more, you’ll be shocked – SHOCKED – to learn that not all elected officials extend themselves with warmth and grace in these instances, especially if what the speaker has in mind to say isn’t what public servants wish to hear.

How many times have we witnessed an imperious Dan Coffey verbally bully a citizen during speaking time, as the council president of the moment sits on the gavel, staring off into space?

Of course, Coffey’s behavior reflects on them all, and in spite of his pseudo-populism, serial intemperance of this nature only reinforces the prevailing opinion that all but a few elected officials regard themselves as a breed apart, self-identifying as an elite of sorts, with secret handshakes and arcane rituals often taking precedence over helpfulness -- and this is in addition to political party fealty, with all its Kool-Aid consumption.

It’s almost a default setting. Within hours of being sworn in, elected officials begin thinking more about the officious prerogatives of their insular workplace than the nature of their work.

As the expanse of the pond grows smaller, the size of the fish in a councilman’s mirror balloons, and these are the times when an observer despairs at witnessing yet another shambolic performance of New Albany High School’s student council, as performed by a cast of 50-something pasty white guys.

However, I digress. They’re certainly not all bad, so let’s dispense with generalizations and address the larger issue of public speaking time at council meetings.

---

To be blunt, forcing an ordinary bloke to sit through two hours of Dan Coffey's harangues in order to say just a few words to his or her representatives constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, and by design, requiring such a trial by dimwittedness obviously is a conscious effort on the part of this council (and its predecessors) to discourage public participation.

But shouldn't discussion and transparency be overtly stated goals of our public servants?

The answer is "yes," but you'll be hard-pressed serving this subpoena to Jeff Gahan, who’d rather concerned citizens schedule phone calls or one-on-one meetings with councilmen (not with the agoraphobic Gahan himself, heaven forbid, as the oracle must remain untainted by dialogue) rather than speak aloud in a public setting ... where control might be lost.

In each instance of public comment at council meetings, there is a sign-in sheet at the lectern, and if a prospective speaker fails to use it, there usually isn't a second chance -- until next meeting.

Rules, you know.

What's more, council president "Silent Pat" McLaughlin recently tightened the rules even more by stipulating that constituents must refrain from the extemporaneous.

Lord, how Team Gahan fears the unscripted.

There can be no doubt on this or any other nearby planet that McLaughlin's agenda tweak is aimed squarely at your friendly local blogger and his council-viewing colleague, Mark Cassidy.

That's because it has long been our habit to sign the sheet and indicate our intent with a question mark, thus allowing rebuttals or follow-up comments to be directed at whatever unchecked inanity just occurred.

Really, Pat, is it reasonable to expect a citizen to know exactly what he or she is compelled to say after being fed a whole meeting's worth of live ammo?

Think of it as our chance for three minutes of orgasmic pleasure following the prolonged agony of watching Coffey's pudgy index finger wagging like the rear-end plumage on a peacock in spring, or Bob Caesar as that starched-shirt 1920s-era schoolmaster warning against masturbatory anti-establishment individualism.

Ironically, the best way to forestall topical references from folks like us would be to shift the non-agenda public speaking time back to the beginning of the meeting.

Doing so would deprive us of opportunities for improvisation, wouldn't it?

Think about it, Pat, and while you’re at it, perhaps City Hall itself deserves overdue attention if your honest aim is to maintain order and decorum.

That’s because city council meetings typically are attended by most of the mayor's upper-level appointees, though never the corporeal dignitary of record, who sends his merry director of communications to emit hurried 45-second Access Hollywood updates of the sort that would have infuriated a red-faced Gahan back when he was city council president.

Memories are mighty short at the top.

In recent months, these appointed officials have perfected an elegantly matched Junior High School stratagem for displaying their displeasure with the public’s right to speak (and by extension, their own responsibility to listen) by deserting the chamber as one when non-agenda item speaking commences.

They rise choreographed as a group and rush into the corridor, tittering, safe in the knowledge that the mayor has their back and the Bud Light Lime’s on ice.

Admittedly this Great March is entertaining, although a third-party contractor must have devised the idea, seeing as not one of them is creative enough to think of it on his own.

---

At the city council meeting of Monday, March 6, my non-agenda public speaking time was devoted to a verbatim reading of an article that I thought might prove enlightening to layman and professional alike – perhaps even to a sociologist who campaigned for office on the basis of a dispassionate and analytical approach to governance.

This Is What Happens Inside The Brain Of A 'Yes Man', by David DiSalvo (Forbes)

By the time I navigated four whole feet to the veneered lectern, Gahan’s minions had bolted into the corridor with their schoolgirl giggles. Verily, not a Mich Ultra was safe.

However, in the constructive spirit of educational intent, and knowing that this news item would require more than three minutes to read, I helpfully informed President McLaughlin of this fact and gave him permission to halt me at the stopwatch’s behest.

Most of us feel a twinge of discomfort when disagreement looms in a conversation. We start socializing with what social psychologists call the “truth bias”--a default, low-conflict position our brains fall back on to keep our interactions generally simpatico. As with most personality drivers, this one operates along a spectrum: Some people are naturally more agreeable; others are more comfortable with conflict (with plenty of non-mutually exclusive overlap between the two positions).

But then there are some—and it’s a significant percentage—who will do almost anything to avoid conflict. For them, disagreement is more than a bit uncomfortable—it’s painful, and on a day-to-day basis extremely difficult to overcome even when situations warrant an assertive stance. They choose to deal with uncomfortable situations with uncritical agreement (hence labels like “yes man”), particularly if they feel overshadowed by another’s status. Part of what fuels cults of personality is a leader’s ability to elicit uncritical agreement by leveraging exactly this dynamic.

A new study turned a spotlight on the brain mechanics behind conflict avoidance and may have found at least part of the reason why it’s difficult to stop being so recklessly agreeable. As it turns out, the same brain areas that activate when someone experiences cognitive dissonance also fire up when we’re facing disagreement—dramatically more so for those on the chronic “yes” side of the conflict avoidance spectrum ...

At this juncture, my 3rd district city council representative Greg Phipps rose and departed the chamber. I was shocked.

SHOCKED.

We're left to conclude that whether they’re on Facebook or at a city council meeting, “yes” birds of a feather unfriend and flee together, although it’s at least nominally possible that as a sociologist, Phipps already knew about the study from a trade journal.

Sad!

---

Recent columns:

March 2: ON THE AVENUES: Breaking up is hard to do. Just ask the Reichstag.

February 23: ON THE AVENUES: A stern-side view of Gravity Head, nineteen times over.

February 16: ON THE AVENUES: In 2014 as in 2015, then 2016, now 2017 ... yes, it's the "Adamite Chronicles: Have muzzle, will drivel."

February 9: ON THE AVENUES: I'd stop drinking, but I'm no quitter.

February 2: ON THE AVENUES: A luxury-obsessed Jeff Gahan has packed a board and now seeks to break the New Albany Housing Authority. Can we impeach him yet?

The annual question: Why does the "rule" of Harvest Homecoming outweigh the interests of free speech on city-owned streets?

It's an annual question that hasn't ever been properly answered. Let's get David Duggins right on it, shall we? After all, Shane's busy dodging information requests.

Or ... maybe since City Hall itself and the Democratic Party machine (is there a difference?) both endorsed Bruce Hibbard's referendum, Harvest Homecoming was merely enforcing the governing junta's own gag-me-with-a-spoon order?

These people don't understand rule of law very well, do they?

Laughing. Out. Loud.

---

JEERS...

...to the pro-referendum people at Harvest Homecoming who told us that we could not campaign against the school tax referendum at Harvest Homecoming wearing our anti-referendum T-shirts and handing out fliers. They said we were causing an “incident.” Their stern demeanor was comical in retrospect since they were faking their authority. They warned that we could be escorted off the premises by a police officer, or worse. We politely suggested that they have the proper authorities approach us and we continued on our purpose. This happened Friday afternoon and again Saturday afternoon.

— George Mouser, Floyds Knobs

An oldie but a goody: "The truth got me kicked out of a Mike Pence event today."

This essay from 2014 is a minor classic.

It sufficiently hilarious to observe Pence taking credit for what he opposed, but the funniest moment of all is when the author's relative snatches the protest sign from his hands.

Lemme tell you, pal, I know the feeling.

The truth got me kicked out of a Mike Pence event today, by bradams (Daily Kos)

 ... Today was the official dedication ceremony for the recently-completed but long-overdue Milton (KY) - Madison (IN) Ohio River bridge ...

 ... The dedication ceremony was attended by both Governor Steve Beshear (yeah!) of Kentucky and Governor Mike Pence (boo!) of Indiana. As we all know Mike Pence was the #3 Republican in the House in 2009. He strongly advocated against the stimulus, saying:

“[The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act] won’t work to put Americans back to work. It won’t create jobs. The only thing it will stimulate is more government and more debt. It will probably do more harm than good.”

Nash on the rights of everyone.

Matt doesn't mention our very own Ayatollah Coffey by name, but he needn't bother. By now, the silence has grown deafening: Fellow council members (most of them Democrats), Jeff Gahan and the Democratic Party itself, all cowering in their respective bunkers as Coffey once again mocks them with impunity.

Coffey has no challenger in his re-election race, but you're free to punish the others by withholding your votes. Consider this a recommendation.

Thanks to Matt Nash for another fine column.

NASH: The rights of everyone, by Matt Nash (Jeffersonville Now!)

... The irony of the local situation is the offending words came during a discussion about “Freedom of Religion” and the free exercise thereof, another of the rights guaranteed by the same First Amendment. It is true that you can practice whatever religion you see fit, but it also forbids the establishment of a state religion. Now I understand that the courts have ruled that prayer prior to public meeting does not violate the establishment clause, but why must you feel the need?

What will happen when a non-Christian clergy decides that it is time that you pray to his or her god before you hold your city council meeting? Who gets to decide what religions are worthy of this honor? Will members of the New Albany City Council be so open to their free exercise of their religion?

"There is a huge difference between an insult and a threat, and ... it isn’t actually that hard to tell one from the other."

This isn't food for thought. It's a five-course meal.

Two Views on Speech, by Adam Gopnik (New Yorker)

... The absolutist American view, let’s stipulate at once, still has much to be said for it. It says that once the state gets into the business of distinguishing acceptable dissent from unacceptable dissent then what we have is no longer dissent. Instead, we have state-sponsored and defined dissent, like that of the tiny “dissident” parties that were allowed to persist, once upon a time, in Eastern Europe, pendant to the chief Communist one. As John Stuart Mill said, in what is still the greatest defense of freedom of speech ever written, the free contest of ideas, even bad ones, is necessary to discover the truth of things. Or, to borrow a turn of phrase from the N.R.A.: it takes a good man with a pencil to stop a bad man with a pen.

But the view that governs the opposite position, in Canada and Europe alike, is not irrational or truly hostile to liberty. The laws and rules vary, but all have a simple distinction at their core, which is that criticizing an ideology, including a religious ideology, however vociferously, is different from inducing hatred of a people or persons. In plain English, hate-speech laws are based on the simple truth that there is a huge difference between an insult and a threat, and that it isn’t actually that hard to tell one from the other.

City attorney: "No authority for any group or person to say they (handbills) are prohibited."

As promised, New Albany's city attorney, Shane Gibson, has answered my question.

Q. Does the city have a handbill ordinance? If no, how can Harvest Homecoming officials prohibit handbills?

A. No handbill ordinance found. No authority for any group or person to say they (handbills) are prohibited. Let me know if you need more.

This issue most recently arose in a Facebook discussion about Harvest Homecoming in the context of the new generation of locally owned, downtown businesses. Gregg Seidl observed:

If folks can walk around and hand out religious pamphlets, I sure as hell don't see why I can't hand out something promoting local businesses.

Pete Lyons of DRC then provided the governing committee's justification, which we've been hearing for many years:

The rule according to HHC, is if you have a booth, you can hand out whatever you want. If you have a business, you're screwed. So a church (or any other group) that has a booth can have free domain to distribute whatever they want. If a business wants to distribute information, they MUST have a booth.

Note also that if a downtown business owner wants to have a booth, or in practice, if a downtown business owner wants to have an clear entry portal for customers during the four days of the festival, he or she must purchase it. In effect, certain downtown business owners must pay Harvest Homecoming to remain open during the event -- and then be prohibited from using handbills to remind attendees that the business remains open.

Now, with the city attorney clearly stating that there exists no legal mechanism to suppress free speech during Harvest Homecoming, it will be interesting to see what happens when the first person tries to do so. The first three persons might well be myself, Gregg and Pete.

As briefly as possible.

Anniversaries provide writers with an invitation to compete with each other for profundity. I’ve taken the bait myself, and plead abject guilt wherever it is applicable. However, I will not indulge as we near the tenth anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, other than noting the occasion in this paragraph, and reprinting the Guardian link below.

Numerous other scribes far more talented will unleash their skills, and many already have. Some of them might even be worth reading. All I’ll say is that history is meaningless without the perspective of a longer view, and this standpoint of judgment will be impossible to fathom until long after we're dead. The Civil War began 150 years ago, and we've yet to reach conclusions on its legacy. This is the way of the world, whether we like it, or not.

9/11: A 'babble of idiots'? History has been the judge of that ... The Guardian's comment editor at the time of 9/11 on a savage response to those who foresaw the reality of a war on terror

Nash exercises his freedom of the press.

C'mon, Matt. Give NAC some love and name-drop! My own thought at the "get the hell out of the way" admonition is that it implies the existence of only one way. One Southern Indiana has its, er, way; shall we describe it benignly as the way that amply rewards traditional economic elites?

But it is not the way calculated to work best in (for instance) a revitalizing downtown business district. Matt's critic doesn't seem to grasp that part.

NASH: Everybody should have an opinion

... Someone on a local blog stated that all of the criticism of 1si was coming from Democrats after the local “Chamber of Commerce” endorsed Republicans in the upcoming election. While shooting down and never answering my specific question he stated “if your not helping, get the hell out of the way.”

Clere to Tribune: Do as I say, not as I do.

I suppose we'll be told that one standard of free speech applies to Facebook, and another to print journalism.

Today in the Tribune, State Representative Ed Clere expresses unhappiness at being denied free speech.

Communication will continue, by Ed Clere, Local Columnist.

He writes, "As an advocate of free speech, I always prefer more speech, not less," and "I always appreciate constructive feedback."

I wonder what he thinks about tolling for the bridges project? Shall we ask him? But wait ... we did ask him, and such is his commitment to free speech that the questions were deleted, and the member list was purged. I didn't do it. This blog didn't do it. Progressives didn't do it.

All of this is so very senseless.

I am not the enemy, never was, and never intended to be. Then, why am I being treated like the enemy? If there is some need to put me in my place, can there be an explanation of why I'm a threat to established order? I'm not running for office, and have not endorsed a candidate; in fact, this blog probably expresses more reservations about local Democrats than Republicans, but although the Democrats usually don't pay very close attention to our recommendations, they don't censor us, either.

Is this a set piece? The Twilight Zone? What gives?

By the way, there'll be a column of mine appearing on Thursday. Care to guess the topic?