Northwest Indiana Discussion

In May 1789, Louis XVI summoned to Versailles a full meeting of the 'Estate General'. The First Estate consisted of three hundred clergy. The Second Estate, three hundred nobles. The Third Estate, six hundred commoners. Some years later, after the French Revolution, Edmund Burke, looking up at the Press Gallery of the House of Commons, said, 'Yonder sits the Fourth Estate, and they are more important than them all. Jeffrey Archer, from his work The Fourth Estate

"Turning now to the Government of men...Burke said there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all. It is not a figure of speech, or a witty saying; it is a literal fact--very momentous to us in these times. Literature is our Parliament too. Printing, which comes necessarily out of Writing, I say often, is equivalent to Democracy: invent Writing, Democracy is inevitable. Writing brings Printing; brings universal everyday extempore Printing, as we see at present. Whoever can speak, speaking now to the whole nation, becomes a power, a branch of government, with inalienable weight in law-making, in all acts of authority. It matters not what rank he has, what revenues or garnitures. The requisite thing is, that he have a tongue which others will listen to; this and nothing more is requisite. The nation is governed by all that has tongue in the nation: Democracy is virtually there." from Thomas Carlyle, "The Hero as Man of Letters. Johnson, Rousseau, Burns", Lecture V, May 19, 1840.

I don't know about the rest of NW Indiana readers of the Times editorial today by Bill Nangle, but I came away with the distinct impression that the thoughts of the managing-editor had to have been ghostwritten by some southern Indiana hayseed. Mr. Nangle complains that "...as a young editor in southern Indiana, I covered the Indiana General Assembly. I heard from downstate legislators about the feuding among 'the people up north.' Fast forward by decades. I find one perception still exists downstate. That is, we bicker and fight and are factionalized urban versus suburban. And most of all, they see the dysfunction of a people who don't work together to better our region...What is there about this region of Indiana? Why can't we work together for the good?"

Well Bill, first of all your query sort of begs the question, does it not, of just whose good are we talking about? In addition, had you paid a little more attention in college to how this nation's legislative process was designed to work (yes Bill "designed") you'd not only understand but perhaps appreciate that what you and others criticize as the "airing of region's dirty laundry before the the Senate Tax and Fiscal Policy Committee re the proposed extension of the South Shore commuter line" is precisely what the founding fathers hoped would happen in our legislative forums - argument!

And don't just take my word for it, flip through your rolodex or mash your speed dial and call Jonathan Turley at George Washington U of Law. He'll tell ya the same thing he's been telling Valpo U law students for the past two decades: Our legislative process was designed not only as THE forum for airing factional interests but for promoting them. That was so everyone concerned with a contemplated piece of legislation could weigh-in, Bill.

Contrary then to your rather docile, if not utterly small-town Indiana perspective where everyone takes their marching orders from their purported betters, we who are truly from da Region have it right. The politics of legislation was designed to facilitate compromise between factions. That way, Bill, everything was out in the open and everyone stood to fairly benefit depending on their merits and credibility. Poli-Sci 101.

By contrast, the genesis and promotion of South Shore rail extension has been shrouded in secrecy as to the identity of its immediate if not chief beneficiaries. What's more, in light of the 2040 C.E. target date for realizing some of the more incidental benefits projected by Policy Analytics and cited in your editorial, namely, that "More than 26,000 jobs would be created, and millions upon millions of new revenue would flow into Lake and Porter counties because of the South Shore extensions. This area -- especially Gary and East Chicago-- needs those jobs and could benefit from added tax dollars reaching local coffers," these are largely speculative at this stage. The very same 26,000 jobs over the next 32 years is likely to be a statistical probability regardless of whether the extensions are made or not.

As for the competing and/or conflicting interests of suburbanites and urbanites, well Bill, hate to break this to ya - but there are differences, big differences - especially when ya consider that tax dollars from urban geopolitical factions will be applied to fund the venture. And given the principle of scarcity operative in economic decision-making there are still quite a few issues regarding whose information we should rely on in prioritizing when and where to spend tax dollars. Reasonable minds can differ, Bill, and when they do it isn't always feuding.

Lastly, as I've stated in another thread, I believe the rail project is primarily a marketing device to promote the very private interests of regional real estate developers and that any and all other benefits are subordinate and incidental. In this I do not believe I'm alone; and yes, I am willing to feud about it if need be. If you can't stand the heat, Bill, get out of the [journalistic] kitchen. (Harry S. Truman)

The Times will not delete a post written by one of their own.