As I drive back and forth to work, sometimes taking the State Street route, I find myself wondering how in the world the curve on State Street between Westbrook Drive and Spy Run will be straightened without removing a number of homes. The curve starts just to the west of Westbrook Drive and straightens out near the BP Station at the corner of Clinton and State.

Here is my question. How is the curve going to be straightened without taking out several homes in the path of the project? The Google Earth view below shows a number of homes in the curve area that sit smack dab in the road of any effort to straighten the curve.

Eminent domain has been a sore spot with property owners since the early days of our country. The Fifth Amendment contains the “eminent domain” or the “takings” clause.

“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Historically, eminent domain was to be used for such public uses as constructing schools, building highways, providing public parks and such other projects that are necessary for the public good. Although the government may exercise such takings under the Fifth Amendment, it must also pay just compensation.

Through the years, the use of eminent domain has been broadened to include takings that benefit private property owners - not just the public.

The Grand Wayne expansion here in Fort Wayne was just such a use. The City used the concept of “blighted” to take several private properties - fast food restaurants and a package liquor store - for the purpose of transferring the properties to the private entity overseeing the Grand Wayne expansion - no public use such as a park, a school, or a highway was involved.

Then in June 2005, the infamous decision of Kelo v. City of New London Connecticut, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) was handed down by the Supreme Court. That decision upheld the taking of private property - homes and businesses - by the City of New London, Connecticut, in order to turn them over to the pharmaceutical giant, Pfizer, for the purpose of economic development in the form of creating jobs and increasing the tax base. Of course, “just” compensation was required.

The decision triggered outrage across the country. Many states immediately established commissions to research and prepare legislation to thwart what was seen as an abuse of the eminent domain power.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Now, back to the State Street curve. The Google Earth picture and my own photos show the homes located in the path of the project. The City has already approved preliminary engineering work to straighten and expand State Boulevard between Spy Run Avenue and Cass Street for $772,000 with the total project cost to run around $9,000,000.

So, my question remains, will the City fall back on its power of eminent domain or will the home owners be approached to voluntarily sell the properties? I honestly don’t see the curve being straightened without infringing on the private property interests of the home owners.

If eminent domain is used, how is the straightening of a curve to ease traffic flow a public use justification?

Barack Obama has of late taken a great deal of criticism about Reverend Wright and his hate-filled speeches and positions. Out of necessity, Obama has broken the ties with the controversial minister who has been Obama’s mentor, friend, and pastor.

But Obama is not the only candidate with a fanatical minister who spouts a hate-filled philosophy. John McCain has his very own version of Reverend Wright. In fact, McCain has embraced two - count ‘em - two controversial ministers - and they have embraced him.

On February 26th of this year, McCain appeared at a campaign rally in Cincinnati with the Reverend Rod Parsley of the World Harvest Church of Columbus, a supersize Pentecostal institution that features a 5,200-seat sanctuary.

With Mike Huckabee’s success at co opting the religious right, McCain had to do something - anything - to generate support from that sector. His desperation to land the support of right-wing religious conservatives has led him to throw common sense to the wind and to accept the endorsements of the ranting televangelist Rod Parlsey. The following YouTube clip provides a flavor of Parsley’s philosophy.

Reverend Parsley espouses the notion that government funds are being used to support Planned Parenthood, which in turn provides abortions to African-Americans. His remarks are truly frightening as he urges his constituency to believe that this is a government-financed “genocide” of the African-American community.

Yet, when Reverend Wright railed against the government accusing it of creating the AIDs epidemic to exterminate the African-American population, he was pilloried for his comments. See any similarities?

In February, John McCain was also endorsed by John Hagee, another fanatical right-wing minister leading a mega-church located in San Antonio, Texas. The following is a YouTube clip of Hagee’s philosophy.

Here is my question to all Americans as they muddle through this presidential election year. How do we condemn Barack Obama’s minister and leave John McCain literally unscathed even though he is supported by two ministers preaching hate and violence?

I will wager you that Parsley’s views about the war between Islam and Christianity are held more widely than anyone wants to admit. And I will also bet that deep inside, many Americans are willing to buy into Parlsey’s hatred and fear of Islam.

And Hagee? Not much better as you listen to his ravings about various entities including the Catholic Church. Listen to his outrageous comments about the destruction of New Orleans as God’s punishment for homosexual activity.

Twenty years or twenty minutes. Not a bit of difference when you tie yourself to ministers who espouse hatred. Now let’s see if the American people will condemn John McCain in the same manner and with the same venom that they have condemned Barack Obama.

John McCain is no friend of the environment. Although he likes to tout his environmental record as positive, he has consistently missed important votes - votes that were considered critical to environmental well-being.

In the 2007 National Environmental Scorecard released by the League of Conservation Voters, John McCain receives a score of ZERO. McCain was the only member of Congress to skip every single crucial environmental vote scored by the organization, posting a score lower than Members of Congress who were out for much of the year due to serious illnesses–and even lower than some who died during the term. By contrast, the average Member of Congress scored a 53 in 2007. McCain posts a lifetime score of only 24.

Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director, had the following to say about McCain:

“We were appalled two weeks ago when John McCain was the only Senator who chose to skip a crucial vote on the future of clean energy in America-dooming the measure to fail by just a single vote. As it turns out, this was merely the most recent example of a clear pattern of missing the most important votes on energy and the environment–as his abysmal LCV score clearly demonstrates.

“McCain missed votes to save his constituents $499 million dollars at the pump and at least $550 million on their energy bills, while creating more than 10,000 new clean energy jobs in his home state.

The following is the League of Conservation Voters 2007 Scorecard Senate votes, all of which John McCain missed:

• Cloture on H.R. 6, the energy bill (6/21, Vote 225)
• Passage of H.R. 6, the energy bill (6/21, Vote 226)
• Maintaining Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) in H.R. 6 (12/7, Vote 416)
• Taking away giveaways to Big Oil to subsidize clean energy (12/13, Vote 425)
• Loosening public health and environmental regulations on refineries (6/13, Vote 210)
• Undermining the RES with coal and nuclear energy (6/14, Vote 211)
• Offshore drilling in Virginia (6/14, Vote 212)
• Liquid coal (6/19, Vote 213)
• Environmental safeguards for biofuels (6/20, 219)
• Consider global warming for water projects (5/15, Vote 166)
• Appropriately prioritizing water projects (5/15, Vote 165)
• International family planning (9/6, Vote 320)
• Farm Bill subsidy reform (12/11, Vote 417)
• Farm Bill subsidy caps (12/13, Vote 424)
• Eminent Domain for public parks (12/3, Vote 429)

No doubt as the campaign heats up, we will see more of McCain’s inconsistencies. The environment deserves protection, and we need a president who will protect that environment. We don’t need someone who blithely skips crucial environmental votes and who will perpetuate the last eight years of the Bush Administration’s head-turning, wink-wink policies when it comes to environmental protection.

Photo Credit: Wikipedia

The Vera Bradley “buy and then sell on eBay for a ridiculous amount” sale was held a week ago. I have to admit that I do not get it. I have never attended this madhouse of shoppers who see big bucks in purchasing their limit and then jacking up the price on eBay. Hmm, maybe that is the only reason for attending.

But as I was reading through the Journal-Gazette, I came across a statement that just left me wondering where our priorities lie. Lisa Pearson from Carmel was interviewed at 3:30 a.m. on that Thursday morning. Her comment:

“It’s my first time, and I’ve been training my whole life for this.”

This is absolutely incredible - her whole life? I say get a grip on reality. These are inanimate, cloth items. Perhaps a trip to Myanmar or some other country where people are suffering beyond imagination would clear her mind and give her some sense of reality.

As we wind down the Democratic primary race for the presidency, we are left with a sense of tension and division. It has been a long road with attacks from both parties against each other and a split among the various demographic groups comprising our voting base.

I have accepted at this point that I will not see my dream of a woman president in my lifetime. Just as African-Americans have flocked to Barack Obama in droves that reflect their desire to see one of their own succeed, women, too, have voted for Hillary Clinton to witness the ultimate “glass” ceiling shattered.

The polls indicate that both Obama supporters and Clinton supporters may desert the Democratic party to vote for John McCain. This is a betrayal which cannot be justified. We are Democrats first; then we pick our candidates to support.

But overshadowing our current divisions is the specter that no one seems to be discussing. That is the ability the next president will have to appoint at least one justice and perhaps more. We cannot let that individual be John McCain.

Photo Credit: Wikipedia

__________________________________________________________________________________

Justice John Paul Stevens recently turned 88 and has been on the Court since December 1975. Although he was appointed by Ford, he is rumored by court watchers to be delaying his exit until the “right” individual takes office. At close to 90 years old, odds are he will exit during the next president’s term.

Four other justices are either now in their 70s or within a few months of being so. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75 and survived a bout with colo-rectal cancer in 1999. Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia were born within a few months of each other in 1936 making them 72 years old. Stephan Breyer rounds out the septuagenarians, turning 70 this summer. David Souter is 68 while Clarence Thomas will turn 60 this summer - a George H.W. Bush appointment in 1991. The two youngest, Samuel Alito and John Roberts are 58 and 53 respectively.

Supreme Court justices serve for life once confirmed. They are selected for their ideological and philosophical views - views that closely match the president responsible for their selection. While a president serves for eight years at the most, Supreme Court justices impact our society and its laws for 20 to 30 years.

Long after the next president is gone, his appointments will be sitting on the bench, making decisions that impact our rights and liberties. Those justices will reflect the views of the next president, and that person cannot be John McCain.

So while I work through my disappointment, I will not lose sight of the fact that I am a Democrat first. And my obligation is to work as hard as possible to ensure that our next president is a Democrat who will appoint justices holding our Democratic values and beliefs.

John McCain is known to his minions as the “stand-firm”, “straight talk express” candidate whose integrity just simply can’t be challenged. But, all politicians are human. McCain is no different, and we are beginning to see cracks appearing in his shining armor. The cracks will, inevitably, split apart that armor and expose a flawed candidate who is not the leader many think he is and who should not be the leader of this country.

The Washington Post writes about one of those cracks today - a land swap of public land for private land that will benefit tremendously one of McCain’s donors. Land swaps between private entities usually do not draw attention; however, when that land is our land - the public’s land - transactions are scrutinized to ensure that the public is not being cheated by not receiving fair value for its land.

The process began several years ago. In 2005 McCain pushed through a piece of “land swap” legislation that will benefit Steven Betts, a McCain fundraiser and contributor. Betts runs SunCor Development, a Tempe, Arizona, firm that was given the job to build as many as 12,000 homes on the swapped land. Of course Betts denies any discussion of the swap with McCain - even though according to Betts it was discussed “casually” before the bill’s passage.

The 2005 deal is the granddaddy of Arizona land swaps - the largest such swap in Arizona history according to the Audubon Society. More than 55,000 acres were involved, including rare expanses of desert woodland and pronghorn antelope habitat.

The owner of the private land, rancher Fred Ruskin and his Yavapai Ranch Limited Partnership, arguing that the process was too complicated for the standard regulatory process governing land swaps, took the matter directly to Congress. Ruskin convinced Arizona Representative J.D. Hayworth to draft a bill proposing the exchange.

When those efforts failed, Ruskin hired lobbyists to “open communications” with McCain. Those lobbysits included the following:

• Mark Buse, a former McCain staff director at the Senate commerce committee
• Michael Jimenez, another former McCain aide
• Wes Gullett, an aide in McCain’s Senate office and deputy campaign manager for his 2000 presidential run

Ruskin’s efforts using former staff members and aides were successful and McCain introduced his land swap legislation in April 2003. The legislation was signed into law by Bush in November 2005.

McCain continued to spout platitudes about protecting the environment while pushing legislation to complete the largest land swap deal in Arizona history - legislation that will result, ultimately, in potential development ranging in the area of $250 million to Fred Ruskin.

But Ruskin isn’t the only one to benefit. Steven Betts, a McCain donor, will benefit - despite all the denials by Betts and McCain. And just when did Betts decide to express interest? After the legislation was passed by Congress and just one month before it was signed into law by Bush.

Betts will capitalize by constructing subdivisions located on prime Arizona property sitting astride a major interstate. Despite public outcry and opposition, McCain failed his constituency by caving in to pressure from lobbyists and politically powerful Arizona figures.

When questioned about the lobbyists, true to form, McCain simply states that he does not recall being lobbied by his former aides and staffers. Isn’t that what his pat response was to the allegations in reference to Vicki Iseman, the lobbyist who had become very close to him?

I have watched him on the Sunday morning political programs, and his answer to many questions is, indeed, becoming “I don’t recall.” Perhaps McCain should now carry the moniker of “I don’t recall” McCain instead of the laudatory labels attached to him. McCain’s armor is cracking, and soon it will fall apart.

After the Pennsylvania debate, who could blame Obama for shying away from another head-to-head debate with Clinton? He was not at his usual peak performance in Pennsylvania because his method of operating is presenting lofty speeches to audiences. These speeches - which I have to admit are good - divert attention from his lack of solid and reasoned answers to questions asked in a one-on-one environment.

His ability to use this “slight-of-hand” has served him well since the beginning of his presidential run. However, since the race has been narrowed down to two people, he is struggling to find his niche when the spotlight shines solely on him in a two-person debate.

The nation-wide viewing audience was not well-served by the two hosts who preferred to dwell - and did so for 40 minutes - on issues other than those impacting American families and the economy. When the hosts finally managed to turn their attention to real-life issues, it became apparent that Obama was not as well-versed in specific topics as his supporters would have hoped.

On several occasions he appeared to be searching for words to answer the hosts’ questions. He not only had to search for words but also appeared to not understand the topic of some of the hosts’ questions, in particular, the issue of the capital gains tax. This gave the the appearance both of a lack of knowledge about the relevant topic and of a degree of uncertainty not visible when he is plying an audience with his oratory.

I would imagine his answer - the one he used to decline to debate Clinton - had to trigger quizzical looks. He indicated that they - Clinton and Obama - had already had 21 debates. I tried to think of the 21 times they had debated, and I came to the conclusion he was counting some or all of the the debates held over the past number of months which included anywhere from three to eight candidates.

A debate format involving multiple candidates does very little to give the viewers a sense of each candidate due to time constraints. But when those seven or eight are winnowed down to the final two as is the present case, then one-on-one debates can be crucial. This environment provides not only a view of positions but also how well a candidate has mastered topics through solid experience and the ability to articulate these positions to the viewing audience.

It is no wonder Obama has declined to give Indiana viewers a well-deserved debate. He knows he cannot afford a repeat of his Pennsylvania debate performance. His refusal to debate for Hoosier voters is unacceptable since Hoosier voters are entitled to just as much information and presentation one-on-one as the Pennsylvania voters received.

Obama has debated one-on-one before other “important” primaries. We have heard consistently over the past couple of weeks that Indiana is the make or break state in this race. So, if we are so important, why won’t Obama agree to debate?

Hillary was ready to debate in Indiana; Obama was not. Could it be he sees the writing on the wall and would rather not open himself up to another dismal performance such as the one in Pennsylvania? His lack of topic mastery was painfully displayed at the Pennsylvania debate. Obama’s refusal to debate for Hoosier voters should cause not just consternation but concern about his reasons for ducking the opportunity to debate for us.

A dismal performance in Indiana might very well seal his fate - a loss to Clinton - in Indiana and, ultimately, his fate with the remaining uncommitted superdelegates - a possibility that surely has not gone unnoticed by the Obama strategists.

According to a SurveyUSA poll conducted on April 28th exclusively for WHAS-TV Louisville, Kentucky, and WCPO-TV Cincinnati, Ohio, Jill Long Thompson still leads her challenger, Jim Schellinger, by a margin of 12%.

This can’t be the kind of news that Schellinger and his avid followers want to hear. Schellinger just can’t quite seem to catch on. Despite early backing from the Democratic establishment and a much larger bankroll than Long Thompson, he isn’t generating the anticipated support among Hoosiers that he needs.

Long Thompson is running progressively stronger among Moderates, where she started tied with Schellinger but now leads by 28, and among Liberals, where she now leads by 14. Schellinger continues to lead among Conservatives. Schellinger leads by 7 in Central Indiana and by 10 in Southern Indiana. Long Thompson leads by 12 in greater Indianapolis and by 34 in Northern Indiana.

Long Thompson’s lead comes almost entirely from women, among whom she now leads by 23 points. The contest is effectively tied among men. Starting at age 42, women outnumber men. By age 85 and older, there are more than twice as many women as men. It is about time women came out in numbers to support and vote for other women.

Although the election is still six days away, and elections can be unpredictable, unless something unforeseen happens, we are looking at Jill Long Thompson as our nominee to take on Mitch Daniels. I have never liked the phrase I am just about to use, but YOU GO GIRL!

I haven’t vanished, but I have been having Earthlink issues with my computer service. Sunday morning, the service disappeared. I have spent three days and talked to eight people at Earthlink trying to get it repaired and being shunted from technician to technician.

Earthlink attempted to blame it on Verizon, and Verizon said it wasn’t their fault. Last night, the Earthlink person finally appeared to get the service back up. However, he said it was my router which was now not compatible with Earthlink because of some line adjustments that had been done.

Never mind the fact that Linksys is the brand Earthlink touts when it sells its 24-hour paid tech support program. And never mind the fact that it is new and has been running just fine for two months now. He proceeded to tell me that if I wanted the router problem fixed I had to purchase the tech service support program.

I DON’T THINK SO!! And that is what I told him. Evidently, he thought I sounded a bit testy - who wouldn’t after all this - and he instructed me on how to clear the problem. It still isn’t working perfectly and glitched again last night. But I am back this morning.

People, we are way too attached to our technology. When our computers go down, it disrupts our entire day. I couldn’t work at home, which I usually do to some extent, so I had to put in 12-hour days at work Monday and yesterday.

How sad that we can no longer function without these square pieces of technology sitting on our desks or on our laps. But that is a piece for another time and place.

Okay - so I have vented. Anyone else out there go through this and wonder why we are so velcroed to our technology? I found myself longing for the days when checks were the only form of bill payment, research was done the good old-fashioned way in a library, people actually answered to help you out instead of having to punch number after number for a selection, and computers didn’t control schedules.

In what must make interesting table talk, Maggie Kernan has endorsed Jill Long Thompson for governor. Joe Kernan recently decided to back Jim Schellinger, an Indianapolis CEO and political neophyte. Maggie Kernan has known Long Thompson for many years and is confident she would be an outstanding governor.

The race for Indiana governor on the Democrats side has been somewhat unusual. Originally three candidates had thrown their hats into the ring: Richard Young, Jim Schellinger, and Jill Long Thompson. Richard Young withdrew early on, leaving Long Thompson and Schellinger to fight it out. Although Long Thompson entered the race much later than Young and Schellinger, she has managed to take the lead and remain ahead in the polls.

Jill has run what some may see as a low-key campaign with much less money than her opponent. Yet she appears to be heading for a victory on May 6th. Maggie Kernan’s support is an important boost to Jill’s campaign.