By Abdul Hakim-Shabazz
IndyPoltics.Org

In the past week I have had to deal with stories where a north central Indiana Tea Party “leader” used a tamale reference with

Abdul Hakim-Shabazz is an attorney and the editor and publisher of IndyPoltics.Org.

regards to a Hispanic State lawmaker. A white Indianapolis restaurant owner dresses in blackface as part of New Orleans-themed Fat Tuesday celebration. And in Bedford at a high school semi-final basketball game where the locals are facing a predominantly black school from Indianapolis, as part of the festivities some of the students come out in safari garb chasing gorillas.

For those of you who get it I will let all that sink in for just a moment.

Yes, in 21^st-century America this type of nonsense still takes place, but what was even more ridiculous was that even when these folks got called on the carpet in social media they can’t grasp the fact that they might have done something inappropriate.

Now, before someone tries to accuse me of being hypersensitive, let me put all that to rest. One of my favorite films is Mel Brooks’ “Blazing Saddles.” That should clearly demonstrate that I not only have a pretty good sense of humor, but I also don’t offend easy.

Now, back to the topic at hand.

Like I said, I do not offend easy and do think there are plenty of times where people look for race when it is really not an issue. I can tell you a ton of stories from my college days in which black students who did poorly tried to accuse the professor of being prejudiced, when in fact the only real bias the instructors had was against laziness and poor work. I also think a person can have an issue with President Barack Obama, but that does not mean he or she is going home at night, taking the sheets off the bed, cutting two holes in them and then heading off to the local cross burning.

But seriously, dressing up in blackface and putting on gorilla costumes when the black basketball team comes to town? Really? And then you don’t think you’ve done anything wrong? That to me is the bigger sin in all these controversies. Everyone is entitled to exercise some bad judgment on occasion. However, when it is pointed out, the very least a person can do is pull a “my bad” and not do it again. There is no need to call the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, but there is a need for people to be more aware of the world around them.

Face it, folks, as much as some people may not like it, America is a lot more brown and black than it used to be. And that’s a good thing. It shows that as a country we can grow and evolve over time and celebrate our diversity while still maintaining our universal values of freedom and liberty. However, that only works when we don’t do stupid things like use tamale references when talking about a Hispanic lawmaker.

That type of behavior doesn’t get you anywhere. The only thing it gets you is called out because at the end of the day you look like either a racist or an idiot and neither is a very good option.

Abdul is an attorney and the editor and publisher of IndyPoltics.Org. He is also a frequent contributor to numerous Indiana media outlets. He can be reached at abdul@indypolitics.org.

By Lesley Weidenbener
TheStatehouseFile.com

Lesley Weidenbener, managing editor, TheStatehouseFile.com

INDIANAPOLIS – It’s easy to understand the outrage.

The mere mention of guns and schools conjures images of Sandy Hook and Columbine, only two of the far too many times that students have died at the hands of shooters invading schools with weapons.

But an issue as important as gun control deserves a rational debate, one that calls for all sides to be reasonable and realistic. And so should be the case as lawmakers decide whether it should be legal to leave a gun in a parked car on school grounds.

So often, it’s advocates of gun control calling on gun rights supporters to be reasonable. It’s not hard to criticize the National Rifle Association or some especially ardent gun lovers for failing to support what many Americans would likely say are reasonable policies about waiting periods for gun purchases or the size of magazines.

But rationality is required from all sides.

Some educators and gun rights advocates are incensed that the General Assembly is debating Senate Bill 229, which – in its current form – allows individuals to have guns in their cars when parked at a school. The frustration is easy to understand. But there’s a reasonable case to be made that this is an area for compromise – or a decision that should be made in local communities.

As passed by the House, SB 229 would require those who can legally possess a firearm to keep it in a trunk, a glove compartment or stored otherwise out of plain sight in a locked vehicle. Currently, that’s illegal and a violation of the law is a Class D felony.

A group of educators and child advocates have written to lawmakers complaining the bill “completely decriminalizes possession of a firearm, by anyone other than an enrolled student, in the parking lots of schools, day cares, preschools, residential child care facilities, and Head Start programs.”

“These are not the areas where we want our children to grab a shiny gun as a toy, take a gun to settle a dispute, or be in the line of fire,” the letter says.

Supporters of the legislation, though, say the current law too easily makes criminals out of people who lawfully keep weapons in their cars for protection or other activities and then need to stop at a school to talk with a child’s teacher or drop off some forgotten lunch or homework.

I can sympathize with the latter point. I’m not a parent. I don’t park at schools regularly to talk to teachers. I don’t carry a gun. I certainly have no need to have a weapon with me in my car. But I am originally from a part of the state in which none of these things are unusual.

In the smaller Southern Indiana community where I grew up, hunting is part of the culture. My dad taught me to shoot rifles and shotguns when I was young. In high school, I went rabbit hunting with a 410 single barrel shotgun my dad borrowed from a friend. My dad and I fished for years at the Vincennes Gun Club and my first job was scoring trap shooting at that same club.

There was nothing unusual, dangerous or violent about someone driving around town with a shotgun in his vehicle. I have no doubt that throughout my K-12 career, hundreds if not thousands of parents parked outside my school with guns in their cars and trucks. And just a few miles away, the parking lots of our county schools were lined with pickup trucks with gun racks.

Today, that’s probably somewhat less common. But hunting and shooting remain a common part of everyday life in rural Indiana.

I, however, have moved. I now live in an inner city Indianapolis neighborhood. No one I know carries a firearm in his car. In general, my neighbors don’t hunt. They don’t shoot for sport. In the place I live now, guns are far more associated with violent crimes than they are sport. Here, guns are not a part of my life or the lives of the people around me – except for the tragic stories we watch on the evening news.

It’s easy here to imagine that restrictions on guns in cars at schools are not just reasonable but responsible.

But in the more rural areas of our state, requiring people to remove firearms from their vehicles before they park at a school may not only be unreasonable but just unnecessary.

That doesn’t mean educators and gun control advocates haven’t raised some legitimate issues with the legislation. It seems sensible to clarify that guns are banned on school buses (whether they are owned by the district or by the driver) and there are arguments to be had about whether teachers should be allowed to park regularly at a school with a weapon in a locked in the car – something students would likely learn about quickly.

But the larger question may be whether these decisions might best be made locally – by school board members who answer to the people in their communities. Perhaps state law shouldn’t ban guns from school parking lots and neither should it insist they be allowed.

Local control might be the most reasonable option of all.

Lesley Weidenbener is executive editor of TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students.

TheStatehouseFile.com

INDIANAPOLIS – A bill to ban insurance coverage for abortions is on its way back to the House after it passed the Senate Tuesday.

Sen. Greg Walker, R-Columbus, the bill sponsor, said House Bill 1123 aligned Indiana with one of the provisions under the Affordable Healthcare Act otherwise known as ObamaCare.

HB 1123 would prohibit insurance companies from covering abortions, unless there is a specific circumstance, such as in cases of rape, incest or the health of the mother. It would include all insurance companies, such as state employee health plans, private policies and student health policies.

“The right to abortion is a constitutional and protected right to woman,” Sen. Mark Stoops, D- Bloomington said.

The bill does allow for abortion coverage if the consumer opts to pay for it separately as an add-on through a rider or endorsement.

Stoops said he does not think women plan a year in advance or when signing up for insurance that there would be a possibility they might have an abortion so they would not know to get the rider.  He said this idea was ludicrous.

Other lawmakers agreed.

“I think woman are tired of being told what they can and can’t do,” said Sen. Gregory Taylor, D-Indianapolis.

The bill passed the Senate 37-10.

 Erika Brock is a reporter for TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students.

By John Krull
TheStatehouseFile.com

INDIANAPOLIS – As the chest-thumping and hand-wringing among our nation’s political class grows in response to the situation in Ukraine, I find myself thinking of a conversation I had with former U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind.

John Krull, publisher, TheStatehouseFile.com

Lugar and I talked in early December 2001, less than three months after the 9/11 attacks. Lugar was speaking at the Indiana Civil Liberties Union Annual Dinner about the crisis before us. I was the ICLU’s executive director then.

As we worked our way through our meals and he waited to speak, Lugar and I talked about what the response to the most deadly attacks on America since Pearl Harbor should be.

I told him that I understood why we had to respond, but that my question about a war on terrorism was one of definition.

What constitutes victory? I asked. Once we’ve gotten into this fight, how do we get back out?

Lugar looked at his plate for a long moment before answering.

“That’s the big question,” he said. “I’m not sure anyone knows.”

Another long pause.

“It’s something about which I think a lot,” he said.

As we talked further, it became clear that Lugar’s thorough mind was working through the problem with a kind of relentless efficiency. He was weighing America’s interests, the moral challenges of waging war in the undeveloped world and the difficulties of exiting from such a conflict with the precision of a digital scale.

Even though he was as outraged as any other American by the 9/11 attacks, he was determined to think calmly, clearly, maturely about the problems before his country.

He knew he’d been elected, again and again, to be the guy who kept his head under pressure. The guy who wouldn’t do something stupid or damaging out of pride or fear or excitement.

Flash forward more than a dozen years.

Lugar now is out of office, kicked to the curb by the Republican Party that he served with devotion for a half-century – 36 of those years in the U.S. Senate, where he earned a reputation as the sanest voice around when it came to foreign policy.

As the conflict plays out in the Ukraine – and American leaders, particularly those in Lugar’s party, speak out – it has become clear how much we miss Dick Lugar.

And just how far away from rationality his party has drifted.

Consider the example of Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who has accused the Obama administration of showing insufficient manliness in dealing with Russia. Graham said that he rolls his eyes every time Obama tries to talk tough. For good measure, Graham added that Obama’s “weakness” started with Benghazi, one of the ongoing obsessions of the paranoid right.

Graham faces a strong primary challenge this year and some of his blustery inanity can be attributed to a desire to pander to a Republican base that has a fantasy about American omnipotence.

But Graham’s not alone.

Too many other Republican leaders are making this an emotional drama rather than a complicated foreign policy challenge.

What’s missing from the discussion is the thing Dick Lugar always supplied.

A reality check.

Without him, there are no voices in his party – and few voices anywhere – asking the important questions.

What are America’s interests here? What would constitute success? If we were to go in, how we would go about getting back out? What would the costs be? And what would we gain from the pain and sacrifice we would have to endure?

A lot of American elected officials now want to talk tough about Russia, Ukraine and Crimea.

Lugar was plenty tough – tougher than many of the leaders who seem to spend most of their time thumping their chests.

But he also was and is smart.

Smart enough to know that fights are easier to get into than they are to end.

Smart enough to always think about the end game.

It’s a pity we don’t have that kind of intelligence – Richard Lugar’s brand of smarts – on the national stage right now.

John Krull is director of Franklin College’s Pulliam School of Journalism, host of “No Limits” WFYI 90.1 Indianapolis and publisher of TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College students.