Blog For Arizona

Community Events Remembering January 8th

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

H/t to friend of Blog for Arizona Carolyn Classen for her timely post Remembering January 8th - Carolyn's Community:

Remembering January 8, “Honoring the Spirit of Tucson”

Listed below are community events scheduled for January 8:

January 8th
Together Tucson

7:00 am Ben’s Bells Distribution

Description: Hundreds of Ben’s Bells will be randomly distributed throughout Tucson in memory of those we lost on January 8th, 2011 and in gratitude for our beautifully supportive community.

Location:Ben’s Bells Main Gate, 816 E. University Blvd.
Contact: Phone:520-628-2829

10-5pm A Day of Kindness at the Children’s Museum Tucson

Description: Join Ben’s Bells at the Children’s Museum Tucson For a Day of Kindness. Ben’s Bells invites families to gather to sign the Kindness Contract, to paint Kindness Coins and to hang Kindness Wishes in the trees at the Museum. The Museum will serve as a gathering point for families to celebrate the kindness in our community.

Location: Children’s Museum Tucson, 260 S. 6th Ave.
Contact: 520-792-9985 (Children’s Museum), 520-628-2829 (Ben’s Bells)

10:11am Community-wide Ringing of Bells

10:15 am Remembering January 8, 2011: Hurting, Healing, Hoping

Description: January 8, 2012, marks the first anniversary of the Tucson tragedy where six people died and thirteen were injured. Join the Rev. Dr. John Kitagawa, at 10:15 a.m., remembering and reflecting on our memories of that day and the year that has followed. In this session, we remember those lost and injured and share reflections of the time since the tragedy. All are welcome to join in this community conversation in the Murphey Gallery at St. Philip’s and at the 9:00 a.m. and 11:15 a.m. worship services which will also honor the tragedy of January 8, 2011.

Location:St. Philip’s In The Hills Episcopal Church, 4440 N. Campbell Ave. at River Road, Tucson, AZ 85718

10:45- noon Journey from Mental Illness to Mental Health

St. Francis in the Foothills is offering a class that is open to the public discussing the journey from mental Illness to mental health. Members of the National Alliance on Mental Illness will be presenting information to enlarge community mental health awareness and promote civil engagement.

Location: St. Francis in the Foothills, 4625 E. River Rd (River west of Swan), Tucson, Arizona

1:00pm “We Remember, We Celebrate, We Believe” Interfaith Service

Description: All faith communities in Tucson are invited to join in commemoration of both the tragedy and the triumph of Jan. 8, 2011. The service will consist of prayer, music, reflections, dance and the participation of those attending. The service will include Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Baha’i and Sikh traditions of prayer.

Location: St. Augustine Cathedral, 192 S. Stone Avenue, Tucson, Arizona

3:00pm Reflections: Honoring the lives of January 8 shooting victims

Description: A series of talks reflecting on the lives of Congresswoman Giffords and those who were killed on January 8.

Speakers include:
Senator Mark Udall (for Congresswoman Giffords)
Federal Judge Raner Collins (for Judge John Roll)
Dr. Lattie Coor (for Gabe Zimmerman)
Serenity Hammerich (for Christina Taylor-Green)
Ron Barber (for Dorwin Stoddard)
Classical Music (for Phyliss Schneck)

Location: Centennial Hall – University of Arizona Campus, 1020 E. University Boulevard, Tucson, AZ

6:30pm Candlelight Vigil
University of Arizona Mall

6:30 pm Shining the Light of Hope and Peace

Description: The entire Tucson community is invited to attend a special evening service of songs, prayer and healing.

Location: Northminster Presbyterian Church, 2450 East Fort Lowell Road, Tucson, Arizona
Contact: 520-327-7121, ext. 229

For more information: Daniel J. Benavidez at (520) 331-4989, or info@rememberingjanuary8.org.

The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reports Giffords, survivors to commemorate mass shooting:

U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, other survivors of the Tucson shooting rampage and numerous others will come together in the close-knit southern Arizona city on Jan. 8 to commemorate the one-year mark of that tragic day and remember those who died.

A number of events are planned that Sunday, although it remained unclear which Giffords will attend or whether she will make any public statements.

Other survivors of the shooting, including Giffords’ staffers Ron Barber and Pam Simon, plan on going to every event that they can.

UPDATE: Arizona Public Media's Tom Kleespie has created a documentary "Together We Heal," which will air on Thursday, January 5 at 8:00 p.m. on KUAT. The documentary rounds up survivors, family members who lost loved ones, first responders and medical professionals who treated victims to take a moving snapshot of a city coming to terms with one of its darkest hours.

Horne's lawyer buddies make hay off the Ethnic Studies cases

by David Safier

Stephen Lemons, aka Feathered Bastard, at Phoenix New Times breaks down the costs of the Dept. of Ed. hiring outside lawyers to fight the Ethnic Studies cases. So far, it's $187,526. The lawyers at the firm of choice, Burch & Cracchiolo, contributed more than $10,000 to Tom Horne's AG campaign.

You can read the whole piece to get the details, but this jumped out at me. The B&C representation was both for the administrative and the federal Ethnic Studies lawsuits.

"The federal lawsuit logically went with the administrative case," [AG spokeswoman Amy] Rezzonico explained. "We obtained outside counsel on the administrative case for reasons we cannot disclose due to lawyer-client confidentiality. The federal case went with it."

The explanation of the need for outside counsel on the administrative case comes later in the article. It was because of a conflict of interest created when Horne announced his decision to wipe out MAS on his last day in office, then moved over to the AG's office. Without those political theatrics, the AG lawyers might have handled the lawsuits, saving the DOE $187,526.

This isn't the first time Horne has used B&C, by the way. The firm was paid more than $400,000 to work on Arizona's ELL cases when Horne was Ed Supe. It's great to have the DOE put itself in legal jeopardy if you're a bunch of lawyers who let Horne know they love and $upport him.

You Must Be Kidding Me... GOP Pissed Because a Member of Congress is a Millionaire?

Posted by Michael Bryan

I can't tell you how funny I find the GOP latest manufactured outrage. Seems several rightwing commenters are shocked... shocked, I say... to find that a Democratic Member of Congress has a net worth of a million dollars. Frankly, I thought that most GOPers simply considered a high net-worth a pre-requisite for the office.

The target of their outrage? Rep. Ed Pastor.

Never mind that a more balanced view of the report they draw their information from actually looks at the net worth of all Members. And never mind that the net worth of some Members of the Arizona delegation dwarf that of Rep. Pastor ($1,072,005).

The top 3? All Republicans:

1. Trent Franks: $33,925,002
2. John McCain: $16,017,639
3. David Schweikert: $6,165,011

Odd how neither Sonoran Alliance nor Espresso Pudit wrote anything about that. In fact, Espresso Pundit seems to suggest that Pastor is the wealthiest by writing "The New York Times sheds some light on Congressional Millionaires starting with Arizona's own Ed Pastor." Why does one 'start' with Ed Pastor when he's the fourth guy on the list? Because he's the first Democrat on the list.

Sonoran Alliance even alleges that Pastor has 'become an elitist'! How unintentionally funny is that!?

"Although he was born in a small mining town, he’s adopted the left’s position on policy and class warfare. In essence, he’s become an elitist."

Apparently, if you were born to modest circumstances and have a Hispanic surname, it is 'elitist' of you to work hard and achieve the American Dream of financial security.

I thought that the GOP supported, venerated even, the American Dream. Work hard. Save your pennies. Get rich. Live the good life. I guess that's only for Wall Street banksters who gamble with other people's money and socialize the losses. No, if you had the bad taste to be born Hispanic and working class, you had best stay that way.

Rep. Pastor got rich the old fashioned way. He and his wife worked hard to earn a good salary, invested it wisely, and got rich slowly by living frugally. His net worth consists of his and his wife's retirement accounts, savings and annuities, and his home. His income consists of his salary and his and his wife's modest pension benefits from a career as hard-working public servant.

In almost every way Pastor is an example of a what a hard-working and frugal American can accomplish given the good fortune of a well-paying job, which is being lost due to the policies our compliant corporate-beholden Congress have pursued. Yet the GOP wants to tear him down and embarrass him for it.

If Mr. Pastor has anything to be embarrassed about, it is that the institution of which he is member has abandoned working Americans in favor of the agenda of the 1%. Mr. Pastor should be proud that he, at least, has consistently stood against that agenda and worked for interests of real working Americans.

What did the GOP Members in Arizona's delegation do for their money? Well, in the case of Mr. Franks and Mr. McCain, they married it. In the case of Mr. Schweikert, he got it from the misery of foreclosed and underwater homeowners. Very Republican, indeed.

 

Top 10 Posts of the Year

by David Safier

Everyone else is doing top 10 lists. So this is either shameless egotism and self promotion or an attempt to spotlight some of the important issues I covered in 2011 in my attempts to add something extra to what you may have read elsewhere.

1. Vouchers by any other name (Jan.31): This was an early warning about what has been one of the most underreported Arizona stories of the year, Education Savings Accounts, which the legislature voted into law as Education Empowerment Accounts. This is the educational equivalent of SB1070 in its potential national importance.
2. G.I.s Matthew Ladner receives NEPC Education Bunkum Award (Feb. 3): It delighted me to see the National Education Policy Center is onto Matthew Ladner, who has moved from the Goldwater Institute to Jeb Bush's education foundation, as I have been for years. NEPC called this the 'If I Say It Enough, Will It Still Be Untrue?' Award. Yes, Matthew, it will still be untrue.
3. Russell Pearce: "You’re not a citizen of the United States" (March 22): Pearce actually said at a Tea Party rally in Oceanside, " Do you know, you’re not a citizen of the United States. You’re a citizen of a sovereign state." Though Pearce has been electorally removed from the State Legislature, the malady lingers on.
4. Why the Right should hate "Waiting for Superman" (April 9): The right has trumpeted the film, "Waiting for Superman," as the ultimate takedown of district schools and a celebration of charters. The right loves to say, Schools don't need more money, and We don't need to fix the social situation, just the schools. Yet the 3 schools spotlighted in the film all spend lots more money than district schools -- lots more -- and 2 out of 3 are committed to improving students' out-of-school situations.
5. Al Melvin's Jobs Committee met 4 times: 3 hours, 54 minutes total (April 19): Sen/Cap'n Al Melvin campaigned on the idea that all he really cared about was "Jobs, jobs, jobs." Yet he was vice chair of the Senate Committee on Economic Development and Jobs Creation which had 11 scheduled meetings, but met only 4 times, for a total of 3 hours, 54 minutes. Actually, only 2 of those meetings lasted more than 10 minutes -- enough time to say, "We're in session, We're adjourned."
6. Don't worry, Atomic Al, you'll always have Paris (May 10): Any port in an [atomic] storm for Al. Melvin talks up the nuclear reprocessing plants in France, even though every conservative is supposed to hate France, even though their reprocessed fuel is so expensive no one will buy it, and even though it is a "socialist" program, government owned and run.
7. Thar's gold in them thar Charter School buildings (June 3): Charter schooling is turning into for profit education. Among other charter-related money making schemes, hedge funds and property management corporations have discovered they can make big bucks by renting school buildings to charters, where they get, according to Entertainment Properties, "a dependable revenue stream backed by a government payer."
8. A funny thing happened at a Terri Proud-sponsored education forum. Truth broke out (June 24): I attended a Terri Proud education event and found she must have picked the wrong guest speaker, an Amphi High physics teacher who told the truth about education funding. His most important finding: charters get the same amount for "regular education" per student as school districts, and sometimes more. Not surprisingly, Proud has not held any education events since.  
9. Republican talking points, circa 1939 (Aug. 6): Imagine my surprise when I watched the 1939 John Ford/John Wayne film, "Stagecoach," and heard the film's only villain, a banker who just ran off with $50,000 in payroll money, spouting very modern-sounding Republican talking points, like "The government must not interfere with business!" "Reduce taxes!" and "Our national debt is something shocking!"
10. Dr. Word notes: The Word(s) on the Street (Dec. 7): I spent 5 days in D.C. covering the Take Back the Capitol events, which led to a number of posts. My favorite was the long-overdue updating of chants during the marches. Gone were the old Civil Rights/Vietnam War era chants. In were newly minted slogans like "Banks got bailed out. We got sold out," "Hey millionaires, Pay your fair share," "All day, All week, Occupy K Street!" and a few Spanish language chants including "Obama, escucha, Estamos en la Lucha! ("Obama, listen, We are in the fight!").
11. OK, I said there were only 10, but . . .: How can I leave out three posts which make me smile every time I think about them: For old school Dylan fans (Jan 16), Calling Mel the Moyle (April 14) and Joe Scarborough IS the new/old Bob Dylan? Really? (Dec. 19)

The "Starve Public Schools" initiative

by David Safier

Its sponsors call HCR 2006 "Private School Tuition Programs." The Star uses the word "Vouchers" in its headline for the Howie Fischer article on the topic.

Both are accurate but incomplete. The true impact of the bill makes the most accurate title, the "Starve Public Schools Initiative."

Let's go to the heart of the proposed legislation. Its purpose is to make it constitutional to fund religious education by creating an initiative asking voters to amend the Arizona Constitution in two places: Article II, Section 12 and Article IX, Section 10. Those are the sections forbidding the use of public funds for religious education. Here are the relevant passages as they currently stand:

Article 2, Section 12: “No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise, or instruction.”

Article 9, Section 10: “No tax shall be laid or appropriation of public money made in aid of any church, or private or sectarian school.”

The amendments would make two separate exceptions to those restrictions. Students with "disabilites" or students "who have been in foster care" would be able to get unspecified amounts of public funds to attend religious schools. Students "in public schools with an average classroom size of thirty-five students or more" could get $5,500 a year to attend religious schools, an amount which would be adjusted yearly for inflation.

The purpose, of course, isn't to simply carve out an exception for religious schools. The purpose is to wipe out the constitutional prohibition against vouchers for all private schools, since the sticking point is always the money used for tuition to religious schools. Get rid of that restriction, and the legislation can pass voucher laws without worrying about the courts. Currently, the courts are looking at the constitutionality of the "Education Empowerment Accounts" because of the religious school issue. The case would be irrelevant if this initiative passes.

The "disabilities" and "foster care" portions of the proposed initiative are old stuff. They're the elephant-trunk-in-the-tent technique of focusing on those students because, What kind of monster would stop those students from getting all the help they need? Establish vouchers for them, and soon enough, the rest of the voucher elephant will squeeze its way into the education tent.

But the 35 student class size part is a new and dangerous wrinkle. It creates an incentive for voucher supporters to cut public school funding until classes average 35 or more students. This is a real two-fer for the "dismantle public education," usually referred to as the "education reform," crowd. It both privatizes education and hurts public education. It's a major step toward institutionalizing the goal of creating a two or three tier education system, where the "haves" get excellent-to-good education and the "have-nots" are warehoused in substandard reading-and-writing factories.

A Vote-2012 Note: The right is always looking for hot button initiatives to get its base to vote. This would be one of those initiatives, so its passage this time around may be less important to conservatives than its ability to energize their base.

A NOTE TO DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATORS AND STRATEGISTS: Spend the money to poll voters about their reaction to the word "Vouchers." In the recent past, it has been a very unpopular word, nationwide. No state electorate has ever voted in a voucher initiative (unless that has changed in recent years), not even conservative Utah where a 2007 voucher initiative went down with 62% voting against. It failed in every county. If Arizonans don't like vouchers, use that information in your campaign against this initiative in the legislature and, if it passes, during the election cycle.

Early bill filings for the 2012 session of the legislature

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

 

It's early, but a number of bills have been pre-filed for the 2012 session of the Arizona legislature.

A large number are "technical correction" bills, or bills that exist mostly to serve as shells for strike-everything amendments late in the legislative session.

Some are head scratchers, meaning that either I don't really understand what they do, or do understand but don't see the point. Most of those have names like Harper, Allen, or Seel attached as sponsors and so are presumed to be bad. Very bad.

With the other bills, there's no doubt. They're just plain ugly.

A few of the high/lowlights -

HB2022, Rep. Jack Harper's annual proposal to repeal the one year waiting period on former legislators coming back as paid lobbyists.

HB2024, one of the head scratchers relating "waste of finite resource; repeal". I think it has to do with a specific kind of speeding violation, which doesn't sound too bad. However, it is sponsored by Sylvia Allen, Chester Crandell, Brenda Barton, Michelle Ugenti, and John Fillmore. There are a few leaders of the lege's tin foil hat brigade on that list, so the bill is probably a bad one.

HB2035, Kimberly Yee's attempt to undermine the voter-approved medical marijuana law by punishing health care providers who prescribe medical marijuana for other than "an accepted therapeutic purpose." That doesn't seem too unreasonable, until you realize she doesn't actually specify the definition of "accepted therapeutic purpose". While the AMA concedes that medical marijuana has benefits, the federal government adamantly disagrees.

HCR2004, a not-quite-a-proclamation of secession in the form of a declaration of Arizona's sovereignty over the federal government, courtesy of Allen, Barton, and Crandell.

HCR2005, a proposed amendment to the AZ constitution to require periodic reauthorization of any voter-approved initiatives that affect state spending by requiring that certain things are funded. Call this "the Legislature really hates having its hands tied by the voters" measure.

HCR2006, a proposed amendment to the AZ constitution from Jack Harper, Judy Burges, and Carl Seel. It's yet another attempt to create school vouchers, this one geared to "helping" students in public schools with an average class size of 35 or more pupils.

Interesting. They force class sizes to balloon by making massive cuts to education funding to pay for tax cuts for corporations, and then turn around and try to use the large class sizes that they foisted off on public schools to justify taking more money from those schools and funnelling that money to private schools.

David Safier at Blog for Arizona has a write-up on the Rs plans to gut "reform" public education here. This measure looks to be just one salvo in their ongoing war against public education.

And last (for now), but certainly not least is a bill that hasn't been filed yet. Ron Gould is promising to bring back a "guns in schools" bill. It passed the lege last session, but Governor Jan Brewer vetoed it (it may be her only wise act during her term as governor, but I'll give credit where it is due. She was on the right side on that one.)

This is just the beginning, so this much is clear: Russell Pearce may be gone, but the wild and insane ride that is the Arizona legislature at work will still be running at full speed...

Hold Clarence Thomas Accountable for Ethic Violations

Post by Michael Bryan

For over two decades Clarence Thomas has been failing to disclose his wife's income from sources which could reasonably be viewed as presenting a conflict of interest on many cases on which he presided.

People for the American Way are supporting the efforts of some members of Congress to hold him accountable by asking the matter be referred to the Justice Department for investigation:

James C. Duff
Secretary to the Judicial Conference of the United States
Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Suite 2-301
One Columbus Circle, N.E.
Washington, DC 20544

Dear Mr. Duff:

Widespread reporting, including a recent report in The New York Times titled “Friendship of Justice and Magnate Puts Focus on Ethics,” raise grave concerns about the failure of Justice Clarence Thomas to meet various disclosure requirements under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. Based upon the multiple public reports, Justice Thomas’s actions may constitute a willful failure to disclose, which would warrant a referral by the Judicial Conference to the Department of Justice, so that appropriate civil or criminal actions can be taken.

Due to the simplicity of the disclosure requirements, along with Justice Thomas’s high level of legal training and experience, it is reasonable to infer that his failure to disclose his wife’s income for two decades was willful, and the Judicial Conference has a non-discretionary duty to refer this case to the Department of Justice.

Throughout his entire tenure on the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas checked a box titled "none” on his annual financial disclosure forms, indicating that his wife had received no income, despite the fact that his wife had in fact earned nearly $700,000 from the Heritage Foundation from 2003-2007 alone.

Furthermore, an investigation conducted by The New York Times has revealed that Justice Thomas may have, on several occasions, benefited from use of a private yacht and airplane owned by Harlan Crowe, and again failed to disclose this travel as a gift or travel reimbursement on his federal disclosure forms as required by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.

Justice Thomas's failure to disclose his wife's income for his entire tenure on the federal bench and indications that he may have failed to file additional disclosure regarding his travels require the Judicial Conference to refer this matter to the Department of Justice.

Section 104(b) of the Ethics Act requires the Judicial Conference to refer to the Attorney General of the United States any judge who the Conference "has reasonable cause to believe has willfully failed to file a report or has willfully falsified or willfully failed to file information required to be reported." If the Judicial Conference finds reasonable cause to believe that Justice Thomas has "willfully falsified or willfully failed to file information to be reported," it must, pursuant to §104, refer the case to the Attorney General for further determination of possible criminal or civil legal sanctions.

Particularly as questions surrounding the integrity and fairness of the Supreme Court continue to grow, it is vital that the Judicial Conference actively pursue any suspicious actions by Supreme Court Justices. While we continue to advocate for the creation of binding ethical standards for the Supreme Court, it is important the Judicial Conference exercise its current powers to ensure that Supreme Court Justices are held accountable to the current law.

As a result, we respectfully request that the Judicial Conference follow the law and refer the matter of Justice Thomas's non-compliance with the Ethics in Government Act to the Department of Justice. We eagerly await your reply.

Sincerely,

Rep. Louise Slaughter
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.
Rep. Gwen Moore
Rep. Mike Honda
Rep. Earl Blumenauer
Rep. Christopher Murphy
Rep. John Garamendi
Rep. Pete Stark
Rep. Raul Grijalva
Rep. John Olver
Rep. Jan Schakowsky
Rep. Donna Edwards
Rep. Jackie Speier
Rep. Paul Tonko
Rep. Bob Filner
Rep. Peter Welch
Rep. John Conyers
Rep. Keith Ellison
Rep. Anna Eshoo
Rep. Ed Perlmutter

Sign the petition to support an investigation into Thomas' blatant violation of the nation's trust.

 

Hey, media villagers! You can stop using 'progressive' as a pejorative now

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The media villagers love their political labels, even though the labels they use are outdated by a couple of decades or more. Political scientists they are not.

They are lazy and frequently repeat what they hear from the conservative noise machine in the mainstream media echo chamber. "Libruls" and "progressives" are spoken with the same sneering disdain that hate radio host Rush Limbaugh and his cadre of wannabe immitators use on a daily basis.

So this is a fun new POLL: 'Progressive' Is The Most Positively Viewed Political Label in America | ThinkProgress:

A new poll from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press out yesterday shows that “progressive” is the most positively viewed political label in America, with 67 percent holding a positive view compared to just 22 percent who view the term negatively:

The poll found that the term progressive is viewed positively by a majority of all partisan groups — including 55 percent of Republicans, 68 percent of Independents, and 76 percent of Democrats.

So lazy media villagers, you can stop taking your cues from Rush Limbaugh and his merry band of haters, and you can stop using "progressive" as a pejorative now. Even "liberal" has a 50% positive association after decades of abuse from the right.

This poll demonstrates why you hear all the Tea-Publicans refer to Democrats as (choose one): socialist, communist, marxist, fascist. Tea-Publicans are not using these terms in their classical political science definition. I seriously doubt that any of them even know the difference. Rather, these terms are used universally to describe anyone who does not share their political views.

Tea-Publicans are using these loaded words with negative associations to rebrand Democrats with those negative associations, to move Democrats away from any positive association with "progressive" and, yes, even "liberal." You just know there is a memo from Frank Luntz on this strategy out there somewhere.

The lazy media villagers should be calling out the Tea-Publicans for this smear. They will not. The lazy media villagers will continue to repeat whatever Tea-Publicans say in the mainstream media echo chamber.

The comedy stylings of Joe Arpaio and Rick Perry

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Days before the Insight Bowl in Tempe on December 30, in which the Iowa Hawkeyes play the Oklahoma Sooners, Crazy Uncle Joe Arpaio was in Iowa introducing Governor Goodhair Rick Perry of Texas and insulting Iowa Hawkeyes fans by confusing them with Ohio State Buckeyes. Oh, there will be signs in the stands at the Insight Bowl carried by Hawkeyes fans. Rick Perry's sidekick confuses Buckeyes and Hawkeyes:

Sports fans sometimes aren't considered the sharpest tools in the shed, but at least we know our team mascots and symbols. The same can't be said for a key associate of presidential candidate Rick Perry, however.

The Texas governor was in Iowa today, to speak at a West Side Conservative Club breakfast in Des Moines. There, he was introduced by Joe Arpaio, the Arizona sheriff who has stirred controversy with his rigid enforcement of immigration laws.

Arpaio made mention of getting to know Iowans, and then said, "Was it the Buckeyes?"

The booing audience had to shout out a correction that the University of Iowa is the "Hawkeyes."

Governor Goodhair, according to Politico.com, did manage some damage control. He took the microphone and noted there also were some fans of the Iowa State Cyclones in attendance and chided Arpaio, saying: "You know how to get an Iowa crowd riled up."

Governor Goodhair managed to open his mouth and insert his foot (again) with another unintentionally hilarious moment. Somebody break out a map, will ya? What moves Republican crowds in Iowa - the caucus.blogs:

“Every barrel of oil that comes out of those sands in Canada is a barrel of oil that we don’t have to buy from a foreign source,” Mr. Perry said in Clarinda, earning a loud round of enthusiastic applause [from his equally ignorant audience.]

Um, Governor Goodhair, Canada is a "foreign country." This comedy duo will be touring Iowa the rest of this week.

Sen. Ron Gould to bring back 'guns on campus' bill

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Let's begin by noting that the rank-and-file members of the National Rifle Association who practice responsible gun ownership and safety do not share the often radical views of the NRA leadership. There is some serious cognitive dissonance between what responsible gun owners believe and what the NRA leadership believes.

An opinion in the Republican Herald from December 12, 2009, Members, NRA not in accord on gun safety - Republican Herald noted that:

[A] new poll by a deeply conservative Republican pollster indicates that politicians, generally, wrongly assume that the official positions of the NRA leadership are shared uniformly by rank-and-file members.

The results are deeply significant relative to federal and state legislation regarding sensible, safety-oriented regulations that would not prevent any eligible citizen from owning a gun.

Conservative pollster Frank Luntz, whose best known recent enterprise has been advising Republicans who are against Democratic proposals for health-care reform, conducted the survey for Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

Luntz surveyed 832 gun owners, 401 of whom are NRA members.

Remarkably, federal law does not prohibit people on terrorist watch lists from purchasing guns. Luntz found an overwhelming majority of the gun owners favored such a restriction, including 82 percent of the NRA members.

Pennsylvania is among the states where laws requiring gun owners to report the loss or theft of guns have been under debate. In Pennsylvania, the measure has been defeated at the state level but passed by 21 city governments, including Pottsville's.

Luntz found, nationally, overwhelming support by gun owners for such a provision, including among 69 percent of NRA members.

Many gun owners seem to believe that gun ownership and gun safety are complementary, rather than contradictory concepts. In the poll, 86 percent of the gun owners agreed with this statement: "We can do more to stop criminals from getting guns while also protecting the rights of citizens to freely own them."

The NRA opposes many common-sense public safety measures relative to guns because it fears the "slippery slope," that passage of any gun restriction inevitably will lead to sweeping restrictions.

Common sense is a powerful weapon, however. Many gun owners, including the NRA members in the Luntz poll, disagree with the official NRA positions.

Which brings me to the latest insanity from the NRA and their Tea-Publican stooges in the Arizona legislature. The Arizona Republic reports today Arizona legislators renew push for guns on campus:

Pro-gun politicians are preparing another attempt to pass legislation that would allow students and professors to carry guns onto the campuses of Arizona's public universities and community colleges.

Lawmakers who this year were rebuffed by Gov. Jan Brewer in their efforts to legalize guns on campuses are determined to get the bill passed in the new session. They have revised the wording of their failed bill, received the powerful political backing of the National Rifle Association, held pre-session meetings with university and law-enforcement officials, and plan to introduce the bill as soon as the session begins Jan. 9.

If Brewer signs this new guns-on-campus bill into law, Arizona would become the fifth state in the nation to tie the hands of campus officials, who for now have the power to bar weapons.

Arizona lawmakers have unsuccessfully proposed similar measures for the past several years. This year, the Legislature passed a bill allowing guns on campus rights of way such as roads and adjacent sidewalks, but not inside buildings. Brewer vetoed the bill, saying it was poorly written, did not clearly define a right of way and could have also applied to K-12 campuses.

In her decision to veto the bill, she said she supported "the thoughtful expansion of where firearms should be allowed," but insisted the legislation must be "unambiguous and clear."

Brewer never comments on bills before the Legislature passes them, so it's unclear whether she would support a revised version of the legislation. She has, however, historically been a strong supporter of gun-rights legislation.

Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City, who proposed this year's measure, will be the primary sponsor of next year's bill. He said he took the suggestions in Brewer's veto letter and worked with the NRA to draft a clearer bill for next session. Gould, who is a strong supporter of loosening gun restrictions and has been one of the primary sponsors of gun legislation for the past several years, has said he does not believe individuals should have to surrender their Second Amendment rights just because they are on a college campus.

He said next year's bill would prohibit Arizona's public universities and community colleges from banning individuals with a concealed-carry permit from carrying a firearm in a parking lot or on campus. It would allow the schools to keep guns out of campus buildings if they post a sign and provide secure gun storage.

Secure storage would likely mean gun lockers inside at least one entrance of each building so an individual could lock up their gun and hold onto the key until they retrieve their gun, similar to a locker offered at gyms. According to a legislative staff report from earlier this year, gun lockers could cost $100 to $300 each. The universities and community colleges would likely be expected to foot the bill.

* * *

[Gould] said he is confident this bill will become law.

"This bill is a lot more clear," Gould said. "It also limits it to concealed-carry permit holders, while the bill this last year was for any law-abiding citizen."

NRA leadership has supported allowing guns on campus for years. The bill is expected to become law despite anticipated opposition from schools in Arizona, the Arizona Board of Regents, professors and a number of students, as well as law enforcement agencies.

On a related note in the Arizona Republic today, U.S. police deaths up 13% in 2011 to 173:

The number of fatalities from departments across the country caused by firearms made 2011 one of the deadliest years in recent history for U.S. law enforcement.

Across the nation, 173 officers died in the line of duty, up 13 percent from 153 the year before, according to numbers as of Wednesday compiled by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund.

The nonprofit group that tracks police deaths also reported that 68 federal, state and local officers were killed by gunfire in 2011, a 15 percent jump from last year when 59 were killed. It marks the first time in 14 years that firearms fatalities were higher than traffic-related deaths. The data shows that 64 officers died in traffic accidents, down from the 71 killed in 2010.

* * *

The number of firearms-related fatalities, which have risen 70 percent since 2008, was particularly alarming to analysts. Of the 68 deaths, 14 took place while the officer was attempting an arrest, nine occurred during a domestic disturbance call and five were ambushes, according to the data.

And this report 5 Arizona officers died in 2011:

Arizona ranked 10th in the nation in police-officer fatalities during 2011, tying with four other states, according to a Washington-based law-enforcement advocacy group.

The finding was part of a national study by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund that found firearms-related deaths were the main reason for a 13 percent increase in deaths of on-duty officers, to 173 in 2011 compared with 153 the previous year.

Three Arizona officers were fatally shot this year. There were five deaths total, with one officer dying during a training run and the other in a car accident.

Four officers died in 2010 while on duty and one died the previous year in Arizona, according to the study.

Tim Dorn, Gilbert police chief and president of the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police, said the most troubling trend was the number of firearms-related deaths.

"If you take a look on a national level, 2010 was the worst year we've had in decades," he said. "This year, we're up from that."

Sgt. Jimmy Chavez, president of the Arizona Highway Patrol Association, said in a statement that the deaths this year were "a chilling statistic."

* * *

Arizona is among the states with the highest number of on-duty deaths, said study spokesman Steve Groeninger.

Dorn said it is depressing to note the number of law-enforcement personnel who have died on duty in the past decade in Arizona.

I can't imagine that responsible gun owners who believe in gun safety support this bill. This is one of those ideological bills promoted by NRA leadership and likely not supported by a majority of its rank-and-file members. And no, the fringe comments I anticiapte to this post do not represent or speak for the majority of rank-and-file NRA members any more than I do.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is Republic's Arizonan of theYear

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Arizona Republic has named Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords their Arizonan of the Year. Gabrielle Giffords is Republic's Arizonan of the Year:

It began almost a year ago. Horror struck instantly. Courage endured through a painstaking recovery that was powered by love and astonishing doses of determination.

What happened to U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is well known. It has been humbling and inspiring to see her beat the odds every step of the way back. But it isn't just one person's story.

Her hero's journey brought Arizonans together and provided a powerful model for how the state can continue its own journey.

That's why Giffords was an easy choice as The Arizona Republic's Arizonan of the Year.

* * *

Giffords started the year discussing civility at a New Year's Renaissance Week retreat. The day before she was shot, she sent an e-mail to Republican Trey Grayson, who had been named to head Harvard University's Institute of Politics. "We need to figure out how to tone our rhetoric and partisanship down," she wrote.

The shooting that killed six people and wounded 13, including the congresswoman, sparked its share of intemperate comments and accusations. But the young man who fired off an astonishing number of bullets in a startlingly short time was not politically motivated. His own personal demons, not angry political rhetoric, apparently pushed Jared Loughner over the edge.

It was because of Giffords' work on behalf of civility that the shooting inspired efforts such as creation of the National Institute for Civil Discourse at the University of Arizona. The conversation continues. The Arizona Republic and 12 News challenged young people to offer their prescriptions for toning down the rhetoric. The winning essays in that contest will run in The Republic Jan. 1, and the winners will discuss their ideas with former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Jan. 4 at 7 p.m. on Channel 12.

Giffords has made amazing progress since the shooting. Miraculous, some say. She continues her recovery in the face of the unknown. How much? How far? How complete?

Her seemingly charmed life as the beautiful, accomplished congresswoman with the astronaut husband has become a struggle to fully recover the power of language, which had been among her special gifts. A politician fighting for words. The Energizer Bunny learning to walk again, slowly, with that loving husband at her side. Nobody doubts she'll keep going.

If they make another movie called "True Grit," it ought to be about Gabby Giffords.

And if Arizona takes a collective lesson from her story -- beyond the obvious one about the power of love and the human spirit -- it ought to be that real courage is about ignoring odds, believing in yourself and daring to trust that hard work will pay off in the future.

Gabrielle Giffords is an example of that kind of strength and resilience, and a model for Arizona. She's the Arizonan of 2011.

File this under "hopeful"

by David Safier

A little end-of-the-year cheer.

Fox News lost 9% of its audience in 2011. That includes losing 14% of its coveted 25-54 demo.

The Daily Show gained 7% in 2011, including all the 18-49 age groups.

The reason why Fox News feels so threatened by Jon Stewart is because his program is more popular than anything not named Bill O’Reilly on the network. Not only is Stewart popular, but he is popular with the coveted young demographics that Fox News struggles with. The average Fox News viewer is 65 years old. For years, the Fox News model of success has been powered by viewers literally aging in to watching Fox.

If you read palms, tea leaves or entrails for indications of the future, you might add television ratings as well.

This looks to be a good sign.

(h/t to Karl N. for noting the article on Facebook.)

Beyond: Commemorate, Celebrate, Commit

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

A group founded by the family of slain congressional aide Gabe Zimmerman has announced a list of events that will take place to remember the Jan. 8 Tucson shootings tragedy, as part of a daylong event titled "Beyond: Commemorate, Celebrate, Commit," which will take place on Saturday, January 7, 2012. Zimmerman family unveils events Jan. 7 to promote wellness:

Beyond is the inaugural event for the Tucson Trails Tribute Fund, which was established by Zimmerman's family to support a sense of community through enjoyment of the outdoors, particularly public lands.

Beyond's Jan. 7 events will include:

• The opening will be a Health and Wellness Fair from 7:15 a.m. to 10 a.m. at Tucson Medical Center, 5301 E. Grant Road.

The fair will begin with a sunrise meditation and interactive music making. There will be activities along a two-mile paved walking/jogging path, a run/walk to the Rillito River Path, blood pressure checks, cholesterol screenings, Zumba and Jazzercise.

• The main event will be from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. at Reid Park, 960 S. Randolph Way. Participants can run or walk the Beyond Outdoor Experience Activity course, take a Zumba class or a session with Yoga Oasis or the UnCarved Block Program, and ride Pima County's bicycle obstacle course.

There also will be activities with the Ben's Bells Project, Beads of Courage, Stories that Soar and other groups.

• The closing ceremony will take place from 4 p.m to 6 p.m. at Kino Stadium, 2500 E. Ajo Way. It will include choirs and speakers, along with special LED candles to honor and commemorate the sharing of community and its loss.

There will be dozens of runs, walks, hikes and other activities throughout the day at different locations.

For a complete list of all events, go to www.beyond-tucson.org or the group's Facebook page at www.facebook.com/beyond.tucson

A Christmas Present and a New Year’s Resolution

The annual present orgy at the Lord household did not disappoint this year. My new son-in-law, Alec, spent his first Christmas day with us, and noted that he’d never seen a Christmas celebration quite like it. Not being a conspicuous consumption guy, I personally have qualms about the excess of the day, but I try to suppress those for the greater good.

Every year, however, I find at least one gem in the pile of presents. Last year, my daughter Diedre bought me Howard Zinn’s “People’s History of the United States,” which oddly enough I’d never read before. This year’s winner is a short book called “Food Rules (an eater‘s manual),” by Michael Pollan. We all know about the horrors of the food industry in America (if you don’t, read “The End of Food” by Paul Roberts, or rent “Food, Inc.”), but this little piece just sets forth some common sense rules for healthy eating. And it was a really easy read. I finished it in a few hours.

Which leads me to my New Year’s resolution. Pollan makes the obvious point, which we get intellectually but so easily lose sight of in our everyday lives, that the food industry and the health care industry are inter-related in their corruption. The food industry makes far more profit from processed food and meats, the staples of the unhealthy Western diet. Meanwhile, the Western diet leads to incredibly higher rates of chronic health problems, such as type 2 diabetes and heart problems, where most of our health care dollars are spent. Of course, the health care industry and the food industry both contribute heavily to Republicans. So, this year’s healthy eating resolution is different. It’s not about my waistline or my longevity this time. It’s about politics. If I can stop overeating, cut out the processed foods and sodas, and eat more leafy vegetables, The Conagras, ADM’s, and Pfizers of the world will have fewer dollars to contribute to scumbag Republicans.

Your of course welcome to join me -- “Food Rules (an eater’s manual).” We can help ourselves and make the world a better place at the same time.

You Say You Want a Revolution?

Posted By Michael Bryan

A lot of our time here at BforAZ is spent railing against incredibly stupid policies adopted by Congress and the crazy extremes to which our political parties (especially the GOP, in my view) have polarized our political dialog. Many important issues (health care, the federal budget, unemployment relief, climate change, the national debt, etc., etc.) are either not addressed, or are inadequately addressed by our political system. It often seems as if America has become effectively ungovernable, and our government has become unable to meaningfully address the very serious problems we face in the 21st century.

The problem, as most of us recognize intuitively, is that we can no longer trust the Congress actually serves the national interest. Instead, Congress has become dependent upon the lobbyists and big-money donors who fund members' campaigns, rather than upon the voters alone. Thus Congress pays attention to the issues of importance to those lobbyists and donors, effectively setting an agenda that increasingly has little to do with the preferences and concerns of average Americans.

Professor Lawrence Lessig, who is one of my favorite public intellectuals, has devoted himself to the study of why Congress has so consistently gotten wrong what should have been 'no brainer' decisions regarding copyright, patent, and internet regulation (his areas of legal study and expertise). The results of his study of the problem and prescriptions for how to fix it are contained in his latest book 'Republic, Lost', which I have now read through twice.

His conclusion is that underlying the crisis in confidence in our political system (only 9% of Americans have confidence that Congress is looking after the public interest - as Lessig points out, more Americans had confidence in the British Crown at the time of the Revolution...) is the corrupting influence of money in our politics. Not the venal sort of criminal corruption - taking bribes for policy - but a more subtle corruption that has caused Congress to become dependent on special interest money to fund members' campaigns.

Lessig argues that the intended dependency of Congress, designed by our Founders and enshrined in our Constitution, is upon the voters alone. Congress should respond to the will of the people as expressed in terms of votes.

What we have developed instead is a kind of weighted two-tier system: actual votes, which are increasingly irrelevant to actually influencing Congress, and the money vote, in which a special interest, corporation, or even a foreigner, can buy as many votes as they can afford. Increasingly, it is the second system of money votes that Congress actually responds to, not the former, as intended in a republic. Unfortunately, this system has become so entrenched and embedded in our legal system that rooting it out will be very difficult, indeed.

That Congress has become utterly dependent upon those who fund their campaigns is undeniable and obvious to most everyone. The problem with that dependency is that those who fund political campaigns are a but a small subset of the voters, and their interests are not necessarily the interests of the voters as whole. It is this 'dependency corruption' which subverts our republic, causing Congress to ignore the needs of those voters, on whom they are intended to be dependent, in favor of lavishing attention on those who can afford to pay for access to government.

Lessig, of course, makes the case more persuasively than I ever could. Here's Lessig summarizing the thesis of 'Republic, Lost' to a Google employee audience:

Campaign finance reform is certainly not the most important issue we face as a nation, but it must be the first. For unless we restore the proper dependency of Congress to the people alone, reform and sensible policy in other areas will inevitably be blocked by those with a vested interest in the status quo, and the money to prevent any real change.

If you are open to the idea that the way we finance political campaigns is the first problem we must address to reform our political system, then perhaps you will want to purchase a copy of Lessig's book or check out a copy at your local library, and then join the grassroots effort to reform Congress with the good people at Rootstrikers.org and United Re:Public.

 

Lisa Graham Keegan to advise Newt

by David Safier

No, I'm not kidding.

According to an Education Week blog (subscription only), Lisa Graham Keegan will be Newt's education adviser.

Lisa Graham Keegan, who served as a top adviser on K-12 issues during Sen. John McCain's bid for the presidency in 2008, is set to join former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's campaign early next year.

It gets better -- or worse, depending on your sense of humor. Listen to why Keegan is "excited" to work for Newt.

Keegan told me in an interview last week she's excited about joining Gingrich. She said he gets the issue because "he's an educator" himself. (She was referring to his work as a history professor.)

Let's put the Keegan/Gingrich alliance into Arizona perspective.

• For all intents and purposes, Keegan is the number one, two or three education powerhouse in Arizona. The other two are John Huppenthal and Craig Barrett. I don't know enough insider baseball to say who is calling the shots.
• Keegan is working hand in glove with Barrett, who is head of Brewer's recently constituted Arizona Ready Education Council (AREC, pronounced A-Wreck), on putting charters and charter funding over district schools and their funding.
• When Keegan was in the AZ lege, she was the prime mover behind Arizona's original charter school laws, which she got passed -- with regulation kept to a "wild west" minimum -- by threatening to pass a voucher law instead.
• Keegan became Arizona's Ed Supe right after the charter laws were passed and made sure the charter school board was ill equipped to exercise oversight over the schools, believing "the invisible hand of the marketplace" was all that was needed to assure high quality charter schools.
• Keegan has been and continues to be a player in the national "school choice" movement.

And now, she's picked Newt out of the pack, or he picked her. Same difference. This is all vital information for anyone who is interested in the direction Arizona education is heading.

Warning signs on a possible education-based ballot measure

by David Safier

I'm still hoping, but, honestly, right now I'm less than hopeful.

Months back, an unusual group began discussing a ballot measure to guarantee funding for Arizona's public schools. The group included Lisa Graham Keegan (conservative, voucher advocate, charter school advocate, education advisor for McCain's 2008 presidential bid), Craig Barrett (ex-Intel CEO, charter-school advocate, district-school basher, head of Brewer's Arizona Ready Education Council [AREC, sounds like A-Wreck]), leaders of the AEA (Arizona Education Association, the teachers' union) and leaders of the AEN (Arizona Education Network, a parent-based group working to improve education funding and quality).

My concern was, no possible middle ground can be struck when the goals of the members are so far apart. I have waited patiently and quietly to see if some kind of accomodation was possible.

I may have gotten my answer, in the negative. A Capitol Times article (subscription only) makes it sound like Barrett is saying, Forget about increasing education funding. I'm for giving more money to charters and increasing the penalties on "failing schools."

Barrett apparently thinks school funding isn't such a big issue, because, he says, the state's fiscal situation in improving. It's a ridiculous assertion on its face. A bit more revenue is flowing into the state coffers, but it's nothing in comparison to the recent cuts in education -- and besides, the Republicans aren't about to put much of the added revenue into education. To the extent our economic situation improves, it will be a long, slow grind. And meanwhile, the temporary one cent sales tax hike only has a three year lifespan, meaning schools are going to face guaranteed cutbacks if that money isn't found elsewhere.

How serious was Barrett about improving funding for schools -- or even restoring it to previous levels? Not very, according to an East Valley Trib article.

But Barrett, while acknowledging Arizona is "not terribly high" on funding per students compared to other states, rejected the idea that more money is at least part of the answer.

According to Barrett, money isn't the answer -- or part of the answer -- even if our spending per student is at the bottom on the nation.

Barrett believes, he said in an interview on Brahm Resnik's Sunday Square Off, there are simple solutions to improving education:

"The solutions are incredibly simple. They're so simple, it's pathetic."

A warning. Don't trust anyone who claims there are simple solutions to complex problems, let alone "incredibly simple" solutions.

And Barrett thinks charters are the answer, while district schools are places students are "stuck."

"Only 10% of the kids in Arizona are in charter schools. 90% are stuck in the public school system."

Nevermind the fact that charters have no better record of educating students than district schools. In a Stanford study, when comparing similar students, Arizona's charters came in slightly lower in achievement than our district schools.

But Barrett is the head of BASIS charters, which he thinks are an example of what charters can do. He compares BASIS against all district schools. That makes as much sense as comparing TUSD's University High against all charter schools.

Because people I respect asked me to wait and watch as the discussions between these disparate groups and people continued, I have waited and watched. Unfortunately, it looks like the discussions are breaking down. I still hope I'm wrong about the direction things are heading, but I fear I'm right.

Public hearing re: closing Tucson's Cherrybell mail processing facility

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Postal officials will hold a public hearing Wednesday to discuss the closing of Tucson's Cherrybell mail processing facility. The announcement stated that they plan to explain the impact of the move and hear from customers about their concerns. The Cherrybell facility is one of more than 250 facilities nationwide being studied for closure.

Wednesday, December 28th
Convention Center's Leo Rich Theatre
260 S. Church Ave.

6:00pm - 7:30pm

Comments can also be submitted in writing by Jan. 12 to:
USPS Manager, Consumer and Industry Contact
P.O. Box 21628
Phoenix AZ 85036-1628

John Avlon writes, The Postal Service Is Fighting for Its Life and Should Be Saved - The Daily Beast:

[T]he post office as we know it is in peril, bleeding $5 billion a year in losses. The culprit isn’t just the rise of the Internet as an alternative to envelopes and stamps. It’s a series of stifling regulations imposed on the organization by Congress, such as requiring the U.S. Postal Service to fully fund all its future pension obligations outright—a measure that would bankrupt any city, state, or business.

It is a solvable problem, but unless our dysfunctional divided Congress takes action in the New Year, post office closures and reduced hours will be the least of our worries. Without reform, America faces the very real possibility that the USPS will not be able to make its payroll in the summer of 2012.

In some ways the U.S. Postal Service is an exemplary civic institution, fulfilling its foundational mandate “to bind the Nation together through the personal, educational, literary, and business correspondence of the people.” And perhaps contrary to the impulse of reflexive government cutters, it does not currently cost the U.S. taxpayer a dime. Part of the genius of the place is that it is self-funded by the price of stamps and services provided, recording year-end profits and losses.

But it’s not a business. “If we were a private sector company, we would have already declared bankruptcy,” says USPS press spokeswoman Susan McGowan.

The amount of mail circulated has been in decline since 2006, despite America’s rising population. The USPS has taken proactive steps to cut costs, reducing its workforce by more than 120,000 employees over the past four years and slashing operating expenses by more than $12 billion-–all while reaching 150 million American households and businesses each day and generating almost $1 trillion in economic activity. But the long-term trend is not its friend, and Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe has been fighting for greater flexibility to meet the challenge of change.

“You know that phrase ‘speed kills?’ Well, the lack of speed will kill the Postal Service.” Donahoe stated in a November 21 speech at the National Press Club. “That’s the stark choice: A more flexible business model that allows us to control costs quickly, or very large losses that will ultimately burden the taxpayer.”

>To that end, Donahoe has been pushing a plan to consolidate 260 processing centers along with lobbying Congress for a change to its absurd pension funding requirements. Another option would be to reduce the current six-day delivery schedule to five days a week. Donahoe states that the necessary route to fiscal stability would require $20 billion in annual costs cut by 2015.

Shutting large numbers of local post offices would seem to be the least desirable route, especially from a citizens’ perspective. These still serve as touchstones for communities, a place where neighbors gather and in many cases the most direct daily contact they have with their federal government. Changing the funding formula for pensions is the most logical and painless solution. Some union representatives might object, but the stark alternative is a looming GM-style bailout for the U.S. Postal Service.

This is a scenario that the USPS leadership seems determined to avoid.

* * *

The good news is that there is a bipartisan bill--co-sponsored by centrist Senators Joe Lieberman, Tom Carper, Scott Brown, and Susan Collins--that would modernize the U.S. Postal Service and deliver many of the changes that the postmaster general is requesting in terms of cutting operating costs and creating the flexibility to increase revenue. Known as the 21st Century Postal Service Act, it was proposed in November and received the requisite hearings on the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. But the bill still needs to be given a green light by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to go to the Senate floor for a vote.

* * *

[P]ervasive political brinksmanship on Capitol Hill has displayed a repeated ability to screw up a two-car parade. Failure to act could do what rain, sleet, and snow have failed to do--stop the delivery of the mail.

Let’s hope this urgent and worthy effort to save the USPS from insolvency is exempted from the usual polarized paralysis. The citizen reaction to an avoidable post-office crisis would be swift and merciless, pushing congressional approval ratings to new lows. The alternative--reasoning together in a spirit of long-term fiscal responsibility--could restore some faith in Congress while strengthening the core, constitutionally mandated civic institution that is the United States Postal Service.

Note: The U.S. Post Office is also a major employer of military veterans. If you support veterans, you need to support the survival of the U.S. Post Office.

Bad news for TUSD's Ethnic Studies

by David Safier

Judge Lewis D. Kowal ruled TUSD's Mexican American Studies courses violate ARS 15-122.

That means, according to the judge, MAS does the following:

• Promotes racial resentment
• Is designed primarily for one ethnic group
• Advocates ethnic solidarity instead of treating pupils as individuals

If the ruling stands, TUSD Superintendent Pedicone will either have to get rid of MAS as we know it or have 10% of the district's state funding withheld. There's little doubt if TUSD has to make that choice, it will get rid of MAS. No way the district can afford to lose that kind of money.

But it's not over. There's another court case in which MAS teachers and students contend ARS 15-122 itself is unconstitutional. If the judge agrees, the law will be gone, meaning MAS can't violate it. Huppenthal, of course, is asking to have the case dismissed.

This is a definitely setback for MAS, but the pending case could change things back in favor of Ethnic Studies. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: The TUSD Board has the option of appealing Judge Kowal's decision. The current Board is split 2-2 on the Ethnic Studies issue. The decision of who will fill an open seat, occupied by Judy Burns until her recent untimely death, will most likely decide whether or not there will be an appeal.

Say who now? Meet Monty 'Millionaire' Nafoosi

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In reviewing election web sites to update the SWAG 2012 list, I ran across this surprising entry at several web sites. A Monty Nafoosi, a businessman and Democratic candidate for governor of Utah in 2008, is mentioned as a Republican candidate for Rep. Gabrielle Giffords House seat. (There appears to be confusion over his party registration).

Say who now? Apparently he is known in Utah as Monty "Millionaire" Nafoosi. The Salt Lake Tribune (May 8, 2008):

On Saturday, delegates will meet at the Democratic State Convention to elect a gubernatorial candidate and choose candidates in two House races.

Much of the energy will be focused on choosing who will face Huntsman, a Republican who has near-record approval ratings as governor.

Bob Springmeyer wants to see more vetoes, and wants to see increased education funding and better jobs generated in the state. 

"Utah must do better," he said. "We need to hold our executives and policymakers accountable for good jobs and great education." 

Monty "Millionaire" Nafoosi wants to see those jobs created by having the state government manufacture electric cars that residents can rent for $300 a month, which would include comprehensive insurance and free maintenance. 

"All that money will be generated in the state, and I believe that will keep us out of a recession," Nafoosi said. 

While those two candidates want to see more jobs in the state, Matt Frandsen is making income tax reform his main platform point. 

He would like to reinstitute a bracketed income tax system that he said would allow 90 percent of people to pay less than in Huntsman's current plan.

They do things a little differently in Utah. Here is Mr. Nafoosi's nomination speech to the Utah State Democratic Convention in 2008. Bob Springmeyer was the overwhelming choice of convention delegates, who went on to be crushed by Gov. Jon Huntsman in the general election.

Wait, it gets better. There was this exchange at the THE UTAH AMICUS blog (March 8, 2008):

GirlsGoneWeed said...

Looks like Monty's got a court date on Thursday.

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE BOU 081800020 Other Misdemeanor BOUNTIFUL CITY ATTY:
VS.
NAFOOSI, MONTY AZIZ ATTY:
OTN: DOB: 12/12/1955
MA - POSS OF MARIJUANA < 16 OZ.
MA - POSSESSION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA
> NO OTN NUMBER <

3:02 PM

monty nafoosi said...

Yes, I do have a court date...they dont let people on social security disability use the meds they need in this state...how sad it is that in Cali you can buy your meds in a vending machinee 24/7 365 but in Utah they break down your door

3:42 PM

Anonymous said...

It also looks like Monty is a registered R. Cool idea though. Good luck Monty.

4:43 PM

Anonymous said...

Monty's also been a generous donor to Republican candidates and causes. Probably helps with all those lucrative government contracts you mention on your campaign web site, eh Monty?

March 1, 2001-National Republican Congressional Committee-$500
May 15, 2001-Orrin Hatch Election Committee-$1,000
June 21, 2002-Re-elect Freshman of the Republican Majority (REFORM) PAC-$5,000
June 30, 2003-Re-elect Freshman of the Republican Majority (REFORM) PAC-$5,000
August 24, 2004-John Swallow for Congress-$500
January 3, 2006-National Republican Congressional Committee-$300
August 28, 2006-Orrin Hatch Election Committee-$1,000

Monty also appears to like a Republican Congressman from Illinois, Jerry Weller, to the tune of $4,000 for his 2001 campaign.

Rep. Weller won't be running for re-election this year amid some questions about his Nicaraguan land dealings, his wife's investments, and his relationship to an indicted defense contractor.

7:05 PM

monty nafoosi said...

Yes, I WAS a republican
Yes, Congressman Weller was my Congressman in Illinois
Yes, I was a government contractor
Yes, thats how the game is played
Yes, I do use my name

7:15 PM

Oh, man. It looks like the Arizona GOP is going to need a bigger clown car.

Downtown garage "is raising questions" (from the Goldwater Institute)

by David Safier

Rhonda Bodfield's heart was not in today's story, Garage's no-bid design policy stirs questions. And no wonder. There's no there there. If a story exists, Bodfield couldn't find it.

Watch how the story unfolds.

Here's the first paragraph:

The city's decision to give a no-bid contract for architectural work on its new parking garage at the mouth of downtown is raising questions about fairness and whether the city got the best price. [Boldface added].

The decision "is raising questions"? From whom?

The answer comes much later in the article. The questions came from "others." But the only "other" mentioned is Byron Schlomach of the Goldwater Institute.

Others aren't so sure that the decision was an appropriate one.

Byron Schlomach, an economist with the Goldwater Institute, said the garage effectively amounts to a subsidy to the developer.

How bad are the possible improprieties mentioned in the story?

There was a no bid contract, but that's not unusual for this kind of project, especially since the chosen designer was already completing another part of the project.

The design costs went up. But the two cost hikes mentioned in the article were both because of "change-orders." Since the article isn't specific, I assume that means the city decided it wanted changes in the design, which meant the architect had to, literally, go back to the drawing board.

Schlomach's complaint doesn't even touch on what actually happened. All he could say was, the arrangements gave the sense there might have been some impropriety.

Schlomach said at a minimum, public entities need an open and competitive bidding process.

"In this particular case, what they did is leave themselves vulnerable to the argument that by not putting it out to a competitive process, this really is a subsidy to the private apartment complex."

Schlomach said governments need to be careful not to violate the gift clause, which prohibits giving away taxpayer money or assets. "It seems like the city of Tucson is skating on thin ice here."

Anyone who has followed G.I. knows, when they have a case, they cite chapter and verse about the problems they've uncovered. Whether they're right is another matter, but they are nothing if not thorough. Here, not so much.

If there was anything more than the faint whiff of a possible taint of unproven impropriety in this situation, Bodfield didn't spell it out in the article. No wonder her heart wasn't in it. The "scandal" is a straw man with no heart.

My conclusion is, either someone at the Star got rolled by G.I. on this one, or the Star's editors figured it was time for a Downtown Scandal of the Week, and this was the best they could come up with.

Arizona Advocacy Network: Reclaiming government for the People

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The 'less-than-do-nothing' Tea-Publican 112th Congress: Worst. Congress. Ever.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Let's say you run a business and you need to hire someone to run your business. The guy who interviews for the job says he hates your business and promises to run your business into the ground and into bankruptcy if you will hire him. Do you hire him? Of course not!

Yet every two years, voters do. We have one political party that hates government, and wants to destroy government, and has no interest in governance. "Government doesn't work, and if you hire me, I'll prove it to you." This is not a bug but a feature for Tea-Publicans. It makes absolutely no sense for voters to hire Tea-Publicans to run the business of government. It is a prescription for failure.

But voters did, and the results are in. The "less-than-do-nothing" Tea-Publican 112th Congress is the Worst. Congress. Ever. Congressional session may be one of worst ever, observers say:

Now that the payroll-tax-break debacle has been resolved (for two months, anyway), it's time to ponder: Was the first session of the 112th Congress the worst ever?

The verdict from voters, political scientists and lawmakers themselves: It's a strong contender, if not the winner.

* * *

It may go down as one of the most dysfunctional sessions, said Sarah Binder, a scholar at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., and author of "Stalemate: Causes and Consequences of Legislative Gridlock."

After two years of Democratic control over both chambers of Congress and the White House, Republicans gained majority in the House this year. The modern-era benchmark for gridlock is pretty high - or low, depending on your view. The 102nd Congress under President George H.W. Bush, according to Binder's analysis, left 65 percent of its policy agenda unfinished. The 103rd under President Bill Clinton wasn't much better.

Other congressional experts say the first half of the 112th Congress was remarkable as much for its belligerent tone as for its lack of productivity.

Burdett "Bird" Loomis, a political-science professor at the University of Kansas, said . . . this year's tea-party-driven House "has been aggressively negative and destructive. And the so-called compromises have been reactions to hostage-taking, not well-considered give and take."

* * *

Experts say divided control of government, policy differences between the House and Senate, a polarized electorate and the 2012 presidential election all have exacerbated Congress' natural tendency to disagree.

Even veteran lawmakers say they've never seen anything quite like this year's spectacle.

Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., who was elected to the House in 1988, doesn't believe this was the worst Congress. "But it's certainly the worst one I remember participating in," he said.

Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., pinned the gridlock on "totally unrealistic" House tea-party members who reflexively are opposed to any Democratic proposals. "They have no agenda for job creation," Dicks said.

* * *

Some voters say they're fed up with both parties.

"I truly believe that this may be the worst and most disingenuous Congress in history," said Matt Beattie, a sales executive from Sammamish, Wash.

Mr. Beattie's problem, like the media villagers and Beltway bloviators, is that he paints too broadly with a broad brush, blaming Congress in the generic sense. There is only one political party that hates government, and wants to destroy government, and has no interest in governance. Tea-Publicans have specifically said their only goal is to obstruct everything the president and Democrats in Congress propose.

The reason the 112th Congress is the "less-than-do-nothing" Congress is because of Tea-Publican insurrectionists who have declared war against the American people and who are holding the Congress hostage to their extreme radical agenda.

If you want government to be responsive to the needs of the American people and you want your business of government ("WE The People" -- you are the government) to operate effectively and efficiently, you first have to fire these employees who said they hate your business and promised to run your business into the ground and into bankruptcy. It's a sound business decision.

The Battle for Baja Arizona Begins!

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Now that we have tentative legislative district maps from the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC), let's take a look at legislative races in Baja Arizona.

Legislative District 1 (Cochise Co., Graham Co., Greenlee Co., Eastern Pima Co.) This district has a 20.6% GOP advantage for competitiveness, which means it is as noncompetitive as the current District 30.

Senator Gail Griffin (R-Hereford) is the incumbent senator. Former Rep. Patricia Fleming (D-Sierra Vista) has filed to run for the Senate in the current District 25, but is now in District 1. Newcomer Robert Leach (D-Sierra Vista) has filed to run for the Senate in District 30, but is also now in District 1.

In the House are current incumbent Representatives Peggy Judd (R-Wilcox), David Gowan (R-Sierra Vista), and David Stevens (R-Sierra Vista). Brenda Barton (R-Safford) has already moved out of the district to Payson, AZ. Party representation in Arizona Legislature debated. Pick two.

Democratic challenger Mark Stonebraker (D-Sierra Vista) has filed to run for the House.

Legislative District 2 (Santa Cruz County, I-19 corridor in Pima County). This District has a 13.6% Democratic advantage for competitiveness, and is a Hispanic Voting Rights Act District. That sound you just heard are the heads of Tea-Publicans in Green Valley exploding -- they are no longer part of GOP-friendly District 30, and will likely be represented by Democrats for the first time. Pobrecitos!

Senator Linda Lopez (D-Tucson) is the incumbent senator. The new district has no incumbent House members.

Legislative District 3 (South Tucson and Downtown-West Tucson). This District has a 37.4% Democratic advantage for competitiveness, and is a Hispanic Voting Rights Act District. This is a safe Democratic district.

This district will shake out over the next few months. Senator Olivia Cajero Bedford (D-Tucson) just barely got drawn into the GOP-friendly District 11, but she vows to move to a house she owns in the new District 3. Some upset with redistricting panel's new legislative lines - East Valley Tribune. That would make her the incumbent Senator.

In the House there are incumbent Representatives Macario Saldate (D-Tucson) and Sally Ann Gonzales (D-Tucson) from the current District 27, and Representatives Daniel Patterson (D-Tucson) and Dr. Matt Heinz (D-Tucson) from the current District 29. I have heard that Matt Heinz plans to move to the new District 10 to be closer to his real job at the hospital. This looks like a Democratic primary at the moment.

Legislative District 10 (City of Tucson, Northeast Tucson). This District has only a 4.4% Democratic advantage for competitiveness, making it a competitive district.

Senator "Don't make me angry" Frank Antenori (R-Tucson) is the incumbent Senator if he decides not to run for Congress. Antenori frequently says he resents the "(R-Tucson)" designation because he hates those "dirty effin' hippies in Tucson." Now that his district contains substantially more of these "dirty effin' hippies in Tucson" than the GOP-friendly District 30, they will make Antenori pay for his insolence. Sweet! Former Rep. David Bradley (D-Tucson), who represented District 28 before running for the Corporation Commission in 2010, has filed to run for the Senate.

In the House there are incumbent Representatives Ted Vogt (R-Tucson) from the current District 30, and Bruce Wheeler (D-Tucson) from the current District 28. As I indicated, Rep. Matt Heinz is rumored to be moving into the new District 10. This is a district ripe for some Democratic pick-ups.

Legislative District 9 (City of Tucson, Northwest Tucson). This District has a 7.2% Democratic advantage for competitiveness, making it a competitive district.

Senator Paula Aboud (D-Tucson) is the incumbent Senator, but is termed out in 2012. Representative Steve Farley (D-Tucson) is in the new District 9 and will run for the Senate.

In the House are incumbent Representatives Terri Proud (R-Tucson) and Vic Williams (R-Tucson). Williams has filed an exploratory committee for the Pima County Board of Supervisors. There is a crowded GOP primary for this District One Supervisor seat, so we will see which contest he chooses. Teabagger Adam Kwasman (R-Tucson) has filed to run for the House.

Democratic challengers for the House seats include Mohur Sarah Sidhwa (D-Tucson), the former Democratic Chair of District 28 who ran for a House seat in 2010, and newcomer Victoria Steele (D-Tucson), a former Tucson newscaster. This is a district ripe for some Democratic pick-ups.

Legislative District 4 (Western Pima Co., Western Pinal Co., Southern Yuma Co.) This District has a 8.4% Democratic advantage for competitiveness, and is a Hispanic Voting Rights Act District.

Senator Don "Tequila" Shooter (R-Yuma) is the incumbent senator. This Tea Party wingnut should be vulnerable in this new district to a Democratic challenger.

In the House is incumbent Representative Lynne Pancrazi (D-Yuma). This is a district ripe for some Democratic pick-ups.

[It appears that Rep. Russ Jones (R-Yuma) just barely got drawn into the new District 13 (Northern Yuma Co., Western Maricopa Co.) a safe GOP district with a 29% advantage for competitiveness.]

Legislative District 11 (Northern Pima Co., Southern Pinal Co.) This district has a 16.4% GOP advantage for competitiveness, which is likely noncompetitive.

The new District 11 pits incumbent senators Cap'n Al Melvin (R-Tucson) against Steve Smith (R-Maricopa). If they primary each other this could be entertaining.

Democratic challenger Jo Holt (D-Oro Valley) has filed to run for the Senate.

There are no House incumbents in the new District 11.

Legislative District 8 (Eastern Pinal Co., Gila Co.) This District has only a 2.2% GOP advantage for competitiveness, making it a competitive district.

Representative Frank Pratt (R-Casa Grande) is the only incumbent in this new district. I would expect to see former state senator Rebecca Rios (D-Apache Junction) to run for the Senate seat.

So there you have it. There are several opportunities for Baja Arizona Democrats to pick up seats in the next legislature and to rid ourselves of some of the most egregious Tea-Publicans in Baja Arizona who have done the bidding of their masters from the state of Maricopa. With a large number of open seats there should be competitive races.

Expect to see a rush of candidate filings in January.

UPDATE: I have been told that Dr. Matt Heinz may be looking to move to District 9 rather than District 10. This would create a Democratic primary for the House seat in District 9.

Rep. Daniel Patterson reportedly is looking to move to District 2, where there are currently no incumbent House members. This would shake out the District 3 House races.

Goldwater Institute shows cowardice on Arpaio story

by David Safier

The Goldwater Institute should have chimed in weeks ago on the burgeoning Arpaio scandals. Based on past statements, it should have come out against Sheriff Joe. But it has been silent. Why?

(Hint: G.I. was equally silent on SB1070, even though it should have come out against the law based on its earlier immigration stands.)

My answer about the "watchdog" Institute's silence is simple. It is afraid of offending its donors.

Some history: Goldwater Institute has gone after Arpaio in the past, hard. In 2008, it published a long policy report, Mission Unaccomplished: The Misplaced Priorities of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, which tore into Arpaio and his practices. It includes a section on immigration sweeps, discussing how costly and ineffective they were. In 2009, G.I. went after Arpaio in yet another policy report, Justice Denied: The Improper Clearance of Unsolved Crimes by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. Both pieces were by Clint Bolick, G.I.'s legal eagle.

Today, Bolick got himself a semi-glowing article in, of all places, the NY Times. He was referred to in the headline as A Watchdog for Conservative Ideals. Oddly, he and I are on the same side in a few of the causes he decided to champion which were mentioned in the article -- defending the right of a tattoo parlor to set up shop in an upscale Tempe shopping area and the right of a cosmetologist to use a Chinese technique where a certain kind of fish nibbles dead skin off a customer's feet. G.I. was on the right side in both cases. And it was also on the right side in its years-old condemnations of Arpaio.

Interestingly, Bolick mentions G.I.'s problems with Arpaio in the NY Times article.

“Our view is that the role of the sheriff is to effectively enforce the law, and we’ve been sharply critical of [Arpaio's] department fulfilling its most basic function,” Mr. Bolick said.

Yet now that Arpaio's gross violations of the law and basic human decency are on national display, his name has not been mentioned either on the G.I. website or recent daily email briefs.

The Arpaio stink was a big part of Brahm Resnik's Sunday Square Off on December 17, and Starlee Rhoades, G.I.'s VP of External Affairs (I think that means she does communications) was a panelist. She tried as hard as she could to hover above the debate, saying the Justice Department still needs to look into the sex crimes cases and voters should be "disgusted and dismayed" the investigation has taken 3 years. Not "disgusted and dismayed" at Arpaio's behavior, but at the DOJ. After Democratic 2010 AG candidate Felecia Rotellini, also a panelist, mentioned the earlier G.I. reports about Arpaio, Rhoades was forced to get a little more specific about recommendations in the reports but still shied away from criticizing Arpaio directly.

Bolick himself gave the reason for G.I.'s recent silence on Arpaio, in a 2010 interview with the Capitol Times. He was asked if G.I.'s stands have gotten it in trouble with donors.

I guess the only time that there’s been some tension is when we published the studies that I wrote on Sheriff Arpaio. We did have some donors who were upset over that.

When Bolick was asked in the same interview why G.I. has "also been extremely quiet about SB1070," Bolick dodged the question, claiming the silence was because of a staff division on the bill, though he admitted,

[P]ersonally I would have voted against SB1070.

The Goldwater Institute loves to praise itself for taking tough stands which are sometimes controversial with conservatives and the business community. But it takes its "courageous" stands on immigration reform and Joe Arpaio when the issue is off the front burner. SB1070 and the recent nation-wide revelations about Arpaio are just too hot for the Institute to handle.

When it comes to offending its donors, G.I. displays its cowardice by committing the sin of omission. Silence can speak as loud as words. In these two instances, G.I.'s silence speaks far louder than words.

Hi, I'm Bob Lord (Blogger, Not Candidate)

Merry Christmas!

This is my introductory post. Mike Bryan invited me to post here as a guest blogger and I feel honored to have the chance to do so. I’ve always considered Blog For Arizona one of the top progressive blogs in Arizona, so it’s the perfect place for me to spout my opinions, something I’ve wanted to be able to do on a regular basis for some time.

Some of you may remember me as candidate Bob Lord. I tried, unsuccessfully, to unseat John Shadegg in 2008. Well, I’m excited to be back on these pages, but not a as a candidate. Those days are over (I think), although I do happen to reside in the stylish new Congressional District, AZ09. My posts here, I assure you, will not be about a campaign I’m about to launch, at least not one featuring me as a candidate. Truth is, I now believe Chris Hedges and others are dead on in observing that electoral politics is a sham. I have far more hope in the Occupy movement than I do in politicians, including the majority of those with a D next to their names (Raul Grijalva being a notable exception).

I’ll hopefully be writing on a variety of topics. I’m a business and tax lawyer by trade, so I’ll occasionally be sharing my views on tax policy, but I’ll try to keep those posts as unwonkish as possible. I’ll tell you in advance that I believe the tax code is an absolute travesty, which I‘ll try my best to expose. I’ll try to take on conventional wisdom whenever I can. I’m a huge believer in organized labor, so any thought that strikes me to strengthen unions likely will find its way into a post. There of course will be unlimited swipes at politicians and right-wing pundits, with the occasional hat tip when deserved. And when it comes to the Occupy movement, I’m a hopeless romantic regarding its potential, so there may be some “if only” type posts focusing on the leverage progressives could exercise with sufficient organization.

Again, I truly appreciate Mike’s invitation. If all goes well, those of you who read my posts will not curse yourselves for having spent precious time reading them, and I’ll either enjoy or learn from your comments.

Happy Holidays to all, what’s left of them.

Bob

President/First Lady Weekly Address/holiday greeting

by David Safier

 

Christmas For Cowboys

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

One of my favorite Christmas songs is Christmas for Cowboys performed by the late John Denver. It captures the prayerful gratitude for the simple gifts of the natural beauty of the American West. I hope you enjoy the song as much as I always have. Wishing all of you peace and happiness at this joyous season.

December the 25th

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Perhaps the best film version of A Christmas Carol is the George C. Scott version. But the musical adaption of "Scrooge" starring Albert Finney and Alec Guiness (1970) is also a classic.

In this scene, Mr. & Mrs. Fezziwig host their annual Christmas ball in the main room of their warehouse business. Scrooge revisits Fezziwig with the Ghost of Christmas Past, during the Fezziwigs' Christmas ball. Fezziwig is one of the few people to whom Scrooge is thankful, for he says, “He has the power to render us happy or unhappy; to make our service light or burdensome; a pleasure or a toil…The happiness he gives, is quite as great as if it cost a fortune.”

Political Calendar: Week of December 25, 2011

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Political Calendar is posted on Sundays. Please send us notice of your political events prior to the Sunday before your event (7 days would be most helpful). See the calendar icon in the right-hand column of the blog page for easy access to the calendar.

To volunteer to Recall Jan Brewer go to Volunteer – - Citizens for a Better Arizona.

We Are Listening in 2012! Campaigns are encouraged to submit notices of campaign events to BforAZ at BlogForArizona@gmail.com.

A Merry Christmas and Feliz Navidad to one and all.

Political Calendar For The Week of December 25, 2011

Sundays, 6:00 p.m.: Drinking Liberally, at The Shanty, 401 E. 9th Street (at 4th Avenue). An informal, inclusive progressive social group, and lively discussion. No meeting. Contact: www.livingliberallytucson.org.

Sunday, December 25: Christmas Day.

Monday, December 26, Noon: Democrats of Greater Tucson luncheon, Dragon's View Restaurant (400 N. Bonita, South of St. Mary's Road between the Freeway and Grande Avenue, turn South at Furr's Cafeteria), buffet lunch costs $8.50. NO DGT on 12/26/11 or 1/2/12. Visit DGT's web site at www.tucsondemocrats.org. Next meeting January 9: Dennis Early - Everything You Want to Know About Medicare.

Note: for additional Democratic Party events around the state see http://azdem.org/events/Calendar/.

Special Announcements:

Sunday, January 1, 2012: New Year's Day.

Tuesday, January 3: Iowa Caucus.

Tuesday, January 3, 5:30 p.m.: Greater Huachuca Area Democrats meeting, at the Cochise County Democratic Party HQ, 1010 E. Fry Blvd. (Sierra Vista). For more information please contact Maggs at maggzilla2u@yahoo.com or (520) 417-1533.

Tuesday, January 3, 6:30 p.m.: Pima County Democratic Party Executive Committee meeting.

DCSRA Discussion Group

Wednesdays, 11:00 a.m.: Democratic Club of the Santa Rita Area hosts a Current Events Discussion Group at Green Valley Democratic Party HQ, Continental Shopping Plaza, 240 W. Continental Road (exit 63), Upstairs Meeting Room (elevator is available). Join us at the weekly meeting of the Democratic Headquarters Current Events Discussion Group. We'll talk about some of the major events of the previous week, including but not limited to political topics, and try and go behind the news for a deeper understanding. For more information, please contact Amy Johnson at acalkins10@aol.com.

Wednesday, January 4, 7:00 p.m.: Legislative District 28 meeting, at Pima County Democratic Party HQ, 4639 E. 1st Street (one block South of Speedway and West of Swan). Featured speaker is former U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona, candidate for U.S. Senate. For more information please contact Ted Prezelski at prezelski@aol.com or (520) 326-3716 (leave message).

Friday, January 6, 3:00 p.m.: Special Court Session to Honor The Memory of Chief Judge John M. Roll, at the Tucson Music Hall in the Tucson Convention Center, 260 S. Church Avenue (Tucson). Judges of the United States District Court, District of Arizona, will convene in a special session to celebrate the memory of the late Honorable Chief Judge John M. Roll. Seating begins at 2:30 p.m. Attendees should plan to arrive early to process through security and be seated by 3:00 p.m. Attendees will need government-issued identification to be permitted entry. Backpacks and briefcases are not permitted. Purses and handbags are subject to search. The special session will run approximately one hour. A reception will be held at the Tucson Music Hall immediately following the special session. Please join the court family in honoring his memory.

BEYOND: Celebrate, Commemorate, Commit - Save the Date!

Saturday, January 7: BEYOND: Celebrate, Commemorate, Commit - for a community-wide event to commemorate and celebrate loved ones injured and lost on January 8th, 2011, at sites all over Pima County. We will move beyond the tragedy and commit to a better future with events that are safe, fun, inclusive and active across Southern Arizona. We will walk, hike, run, ride, stroll and come together to remember what happened, acknowledge how it changed us, and celebrate our community. Stay tuned for more details. Visit www.beyond-tucson.org for updates. for more information please contact info@beyond-tucson.org. For Press Inquiries please contact press@beyond-tucson.org.

Monday, January 9: Opening day of Arizona Legislature.

Monday, January 9, 7:00 p.m.: Democrats of Oro Valley meeting, at the Oro Valley Public Library (located at the corner of La Canada and Naranja Drive - Oro Valley). Featured speaker is Elna Otter Ph.D. Elna represents The Climate Reality Project, www.climaterealityproject.org, founded and chaired by Al Gore. Her topic will be “An Inconvenient Update on Climate Change.” Elna currently serves on the state executive committee of the Sierra Club. Come early at 6:45 and enjoy socializing before the meeting. For more information please contact Mike Dayton at (520) 742-3774.

Tuesday, January 10: New Hampshire Primary.

Saturday, January 14, 10:00 a.m.: Legislative District 30 meeting, at Pima County Democratic Party HQ, 4639 E. 1st Street (one block South of Speedway and West of Swan). For more information please contact Marilee Malmberg at azld30dems@gmail.com or (520) 301-5246.

Saturday, January 14, 10:00 a.m.: Mule Mountain Democrat Club meeting, at the Bisbee Senior Center on Collins Road (behind the Safeway and off Naco Road). For more information please contact John Viverto at Vivertos@aol.com or (520) 432-2366.

Saturday, January 14, 11:00 a.m.: Legislative District 29 Town Hall, at Quincie Douglas Library, 1585 E. 36th Street (Tucson). Rep. Daniel Patterson invites the public to this town hall to hear from Tucsonans and to listen to what matters to them in the 2012 legislative session. "I want to hear from you and listen to your ideas on how we can make our quality of life better for Arizona families. Please join me.”

Monday, January 16: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (observed).

Tuesday, January 17, 11:00 a.m.: Democratic Women of Southeast Arizona meeting, at the Pueblo del Sol Country Club (Sierra Vista). Members and guests are encouraged to attend and the public is invited. The cost for the luncheon is $14.00. For more information please contact Pat Hickey at jopath54@live.com or (520)378-1874 to make reservations.

Democratic Club of the Santa Rita Area: An Evening With David Fitzsimmons

Tuesday, January 17, 6:00 p.m.: Democratic Club of the Santa Rita Area hosts An Evening With David Fitzsimmons, at the Desert Diamond Casino, 1100 E. Pima Mine Road at I-19. Cash bar at 5:30 p.m. Dinner at 6:00 p.m. Political Satire at 7:00 p..m. Menu Options include Steak, chicken, fish or vegetarian (we will call you to obtain your preference). Ticket Pricing: DCSRA members - Basic $50, Sponsor $100, Patron $200; Non-Members - Basic $75, Sponsor $125, Patron $225. Pay on line using ActBlue, or by check: mail your check payable to DCSRA, P.O.Box 131, Green Valley, AZ 85622, Attn: Jan. 17. Seating is limited. Please RSVP via ticket purchase. All proceeds go toward DCSRA & Democratic HQ Green Valley. For more information please contact gvdemocrats@gmail.com or call HQ at (520) 838-0590.

Arizona Democratic Party Winter State Committee Meeting, Tucson, AZ - Save the Date!

Saturday, January 21: Arizona Democratic Party Winter State Committee Meeting, at Desert View High School, 4101 E. Valencia Road (Tucson). For more information go to Arizona Democratic Party: State Committee. Must attend for victory in 2012!

Saturday, January 21: South Carolina Primary.

Pima County Democratic Party Conference, Tucson AZ- Save the Date!

Saturday, January 28, 9:00 a.m.: Pima County Democratic Party Conference, at Sunnyside High School, 1725 E. Bilby Road (Tucson). Workshops, trainings, guest speakers and Labor 101 presented by UFCW. Save the Date!

Tuesday, January 31: Florida Primary.

Saturday, February 4: Nevada Caucus. Maine Caucus Feb. 4-11.

Tuesday, February 7: Colorado Caucus. Minnesota Caucus. Missouri Primary.

Tuesday, February 14: Arizona Statehood Centennial - 100 today!

Arizona Advocacy Network Dinner with Sen. Bernie Sanders - Save the Date!

Thursday, February 23, 5:30 p.m.: Arizona Advocacy Network Dinner with Sen. Bernie Sanders, at the Wyndham Downtown Phoenix Hotel, 50 E. Adams Street (Phoenix). You can rsvp a table of 10 now to fill with your friends. Ticket and table prices will be announced after January 1st. Save some holiday cash so you can join us for an event that will help change the direction of Arizona for our next 100 years!

Cochise County Democratic Party's Annual Presidents' Day Dinner - Save the Date!

Monday, February 27: Cochise County Democratic Party's Annual Presidents' Day Dinner/Fundraiser, at Cafe Roca in Bisbee. Our special guest is political cartoonist and humorist David Fitzsimmons. Save the Date! Details TBA.

February 28: Arizona Primary. Michigan Primary.

March 3: Washington Caucus.

Arizona Democratic Party Presidential Nomination Caucuses - Save the Dates!

Saturday, March 31: All registered Democrats in Arizona may participate in Arizona's Presidential Nomination Caucuses which will be held in each congressional district. Arizona is allocated a total of 79 delegates and 6 alternates for the 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C. during the week of Sept. 3. Delegates are responsible for all costs incurred during their travel and stay at the convention. The Arizona Democratic Party will release the list of all caucus locations on or before Feb. 17.

Those interested in running for delegate to the national convention must contact the Arizona Democratic Party and file a statement of candidacy by March 1 to be considered eligible for selection at the March 31 district-level caucuses. A total of 46 delegates will be selected by Democratic precinct committee persons at the caucuses.

Those interested in running for delegate to the National Convention but unable to attend the March 31 district-level caucuses will have one additional opportunity to be selected: the Democratic State Convention on April 21. Interested parties must file a statement of candidacy by March 21 in order to be considered eligible for selection at the April 21 Democratic State Convention. A total of 15 delegates and 6 alternates will be selected by Democratic state committee members at the Democratic State Convention on April 21.

For more information about Presidential Nomination Caucuses, the 2012 Democratic National Convention or Delegate Selection, please call (602) 298-4200.

Cartoon of The Week

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Home for Christmas

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Soldiers are returning home from Iraq across the country and some of them are pulling off one more secret mission to surprise their families. Kristen Dahlgren reports for NBC Nightly News. Welcome home, and a Merry Christmas to you and your families.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Merry Christmas, Darling

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Merry Christmas, Darling is an original song for the The Carpenters, sung by the late Karen Carpenter. It was originally released as a 45 rpm single in 1970, but became a holiday classic with the release of The Carpenters' "Christmas Portrait" Album in 1978, with new vocals by Karen (from the 1978 Carpenters Christmas special).

I never knew the story behind the song:

Richard Carpenter composed the music for this song in 1966 when he was 19 years old. Frank Pooler wrote the lyrics twenty years earlier, in 1946, when he also was only 19 years old. The song Pooler had written was to be a Christmas gift for his girl friend whom he was missing while being away from her during a visit with his parents at Christmas time. Sadly, their relationship ended before he could present it to her.

Twenty years later, Pooler was the choir director at California State University in Long Beach, when both Karen and Richard Carpenter were part of the choir. Richard and Karen were playing local gigs and had tired of playing the usual Christmas fare. Richard asked Pooler, their favorite professor, if he had any ideas for different songs.

Pooler remembered the Christmas song he had written many years before and mentioned it to Richard, adding that he didn't think much of the melody anymore. Richard said he would try his hand at writing new music for the lyrics. Within about 15 minutes he was finished creating a song, that was written by two teenagers who were a generation apart, that was destined to become a Christmas classic.

So this was a song that had to wait more than 20 years for the right singer to come along before it was heard. I wonder if Mr. Pooler's old girlfriend ever knew she was the inspiration? And what a tragic loss of a golden singing voice in Karen Carpenter. (Video plays in YouTube).

Peace on Earth/Little Drummer Boy

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In another unsual pairing you would never imagine for a Christmas song, Bing Crosby teamed up with David Bowie in 1977 for Peace on Earth/Little Drummer Boy. The "Peace on Earth" tune and lyrics were added to the song especially for this duet. The song was recorded in September for Crosby's 1977 television special, Bing Crosby's Merrie Olde Christmas -- his last. Bing Crosby passed away on October 14, before the television special aired.

Merry Christmas, Mrs. Brewer...

Posted by Michael Bryan

This is Mrs. Jan Brewer, Governor of Arizona:

This is how Mrs. Brewer would like you to see her this Christmas season:

To thousands of Arizonans, however, faced with family devastation after Brewer's cuts to their Medicaid and their children's schools, and facing bankruptcy with a home mortgage underwater in a terrible economy made worse by the mad austerity of Republican orthodoxy, this is what she actually looks like:

Merry Christmas, Mrs. Brewer.

Christmas Through Your Eyes

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Why do kids believe a chubby guy in a flying sleigh can deliver joy across America?

Because their parents do.

From the Associated Press Parents, children alike continue to adore Jolly Old Elf:

A whopping 84 percent of grown-ups were once children who trusted in Santa's magic, and lots cling to it still.

* * *

Year after year, Santa Claus survives the scoffers and the Scrooges and the 6-year-old playground skeptics. He endures belittling commercials that portray him shopping at Target or taking directions from an iPhone. He shrugs off scolds who say his bagful of toys overshadows the reason for the season.

Two-thirds of parents with kids under 18 say Santa's an important part of their celebrations this year.

Moms, especially, have a soft spot for the man in red - 71 percent of them say he's important, and that's a big jump from 58 percent just five years ago.

"Santa Claus is more than someone who just comes and gives you a present, it's this whole spirit of giving and magic that you get to be a part of and celebrate". . .

For those of you with young children or grandchildren, the joy and wonder in a child's heart at Christmas can restore your own sense of wonder and magic.

This is captured in the beautiful song by Gloria Estafan, Christmas Through Your Eyes (1993) (Plays in YouTube).

Give your public school tax credit before December 31 -- Second Reminder

by David Safier

OK, it's the day before Christmas. If you want to add to the warm holiday feeling giving gives -- and do it without a permanent dent in your pocketbook -- you can give $200 to a public school, $400 if you're a couple, and get it all back when you file your state income taxes. That's 100% back, assuming you owe at least as much in taxes as you gave.

At no cost to you, one (or more) of our public schools gets a small financial boost it sorely needs. What a holiday deal!

I recommend you give your tax credit dollars either to a TUSD school or a Sunnyside School. The main reason is, those districts have more low income students than most area districts, and low income schools get less in the way of tax credit dollars than their more affluent neighbors. People who are comfortable financially know they will owe taxes, and they can afford to give up $200-$400 now with the prospect of getting it back later, something a financially strapped family can't do.

Here's the TUSD page listing their schools that get the lowest tax credit dollars per student. You can contribute by credit card here or print out a form to send in.

Sunnyside only has a mail-in form.

Three local districts get a lump of coal in their stockings from me -- a recommendation you don't give your tax credit dollars there: Marana, Amphi and Flowing Wells. Here's the reason. All three districts allow donors to name the student who gets the money and the activity it goes for (unfortunately, state law says the money can only go for extracurricular activities). That means parents can pay for their own children's band, sports, drama or trip expenses and get their money back, while less fortunate families have to pay the same expenses out of their own pockets. Here's what that looks like on one of the district's forms.

It's perfectly legit to offer this alternative, but I think it's reprehensible. Admittedly, if I had a child in one of those districts, I would probably take advantage of the offer, but that doesn't make it right. I don't think those school districts should be rewarded for encouraging behavior that favors its financially comfortable families over those with less income.

If it's good for back-door vouchers, it's good for abortion counseling

by David Safier

Judge Roslyn Silver wisely decided a law forbidding tax credits for organizations that discuss the possibility of abortions with their clients is illegal. The judge's reasoning: If an organization that counsels against abortions can get tax credits, so can one suggesting abortions as an alternative.

Rep. Debbie Lesko, who wrote legislation getting rid of tax credits for organizations counseling on abortion issues, objects. Hey, she says, those tax credits are really government money because the government gives the donors their money back when they pay taxes, and it's illegal to use government money to fund abortions.

Hmm. What do you think of private school tuition tax credits, Debbie? Is that government money too? If so, we have to get rid of tax credits paying for private school tuition, because the state constitution forbids the use of state funds for religious education. If the private school tax credits are state funds, that makes them vouchers, and the state Supreme Court ruled vouchers are unconstitutional. That's why their proponents say, No, they're not vouchers, because the money doesn't make it through the state house doors, so it's not officially government money.

You can't have it both ways, Debbie. Your conservative friends should warn you, you're wandering into dangerous legal territory here.

Santa Baby

Posted by AzblueMeanie:

Most of us are familiar with Madonna's cover version of Santa Baby, but it was Eartha Kitt who first made this song popular. The song was written by Joan Javits (the niece of Senator Jacob K. Javits) and "Philip Springer," a legal fiction created for purposes of membership in the performing rights organization BMI. The song was a huge hit for Kitt, and she later said that it was one of her favorite songs to record. She was purr-fect as Catwoman (replacing Julie Newmar) on the Batman TV series in the 1960's. Kitt passed away on Christmas day in 2008, but she left us an enduring Christmas classic.

Another Angel Gets It's Wings

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I watch It's a Wonderful Life almost every year because I love the movie. In 1993, Target stores did a promotional tie-in to the movie with an original song "Another Angel Gets It's Wings," which could only be bought on cassette if you bought either a Vince Gill or Trisha Yearwood CD (which I did, a big Trisha Yearwood fan). Maybe this limited availability is why radio stations do not seem to play this wonderful Christmas song often. Here is the Target promotional ad that ran for the song.

And here is the full length version of the song posted by by trailpony2001 (plays in YouTube).

Willard 'Mittens' Romney's post-truth politics (big lie) campaign

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I posted about the relatively new political science concept of Post-Truth Politics a couple of years ago. Briefly:

We live in post-truth politics: a political culture in which politics (public opinion and media narratives) have become almost entirely disconnected from policy (the substance of legislation). This obviously dims any hope of reasoned legislative compromise.

This post-truth politics has become a hallmark of Willard "Mittens" Romney's campaign. As Steve Benen pointed out in The rationale behind ‘bald-faced lies’:

Romney and his team have demonstrated a willingness to lie — blatantly and shamelessly — with discomforting ease. We’ve seen this in offensive campaign ads, routine talking points, policy arguments, and even personal anecdotes and characteristics.

And when pressed, Romney and his aides have freely admitted, more than once, that niceties such as facts, evidence, and reason just aren’t that important to them. Dishonest “propaganda” should simply be expected and accepted, they’ve said.

I’ve been watching national campaigns for quite a while, and I can’t think of any comparable major-party campaigns acting this way[.]

Romney lies often and as carelessly as he does without the slightest regard for how easy it is to prove which of his claims aren’t true. He is confident that the mainstream media will not hold him accountable for his lies, or will devise false equivalencies from minor misstatements of fact by President Obama. It's all the same to the media villagers.

Greg Sargent has also been hammering away on this theme. The method behind Mitt Romney’s Big Lie strategy - The Plum Line:

[A]nother thing that’s also important to understand about Romney’s falsehoods is that they all serve a larger story that he and his advisers have been deliberately developing over time. When you look at all the Big Lies Romney has told in recent months, you’ll see a common thread running through them all.

They’re all about conveying a sense that you should find Obama’s intentions towards America vaguely suspect; that Obama harbors a deep seated indifference or even hostility towards the fundamentals that make America what it is; and that Obama is in some basic way undermining the foundation of American life as we know it.

* * *

At this point, the pattern here is obvious, and it’s clearly not an accident. And Romney and his team will remain secure in the knowledge that most of the media will politely look the other way as the Big Lies keep flowing, and will continue to treat them as just part of the game.

Today, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman adds his voice to the growing number of political commentators who are expounding on the ease with which Mittens Romney lies. The Post-Truth Campaign - NYTimes.com (excerpt):

Over all, Mr. Obama’s positions on economic policy resemble those that moderate Republicans used to espouse. Yet Mr. Romney portrays the president as the second coming of Fidel Castro and seems confident that he will pay no price for making stuff up.

Welcome to post-truth politics.

Why does Mr. Romney think he can get away with this kind of thing? Well, he has already gotten away with a series of equally fraudulent attacks. In fact, he has based pretty much his whole campaign around a strategy of attacking Mr. Obama for doing things that the president hasn’t done and believing things he doesn’t believe.

For example, in October Mr. Romney pledged that as president, “I will reverse President Obama’s massive defense cuts.” That line presumably plays well with Republican audiences, but what is he talking about? The defense budget has continued to grow steadily since Mr. Obama took office.

Then there’s Mr. Romney’s frequent suggestion that the president has gone around the world “apologizing for America.” This is a popular theme on the right — but the so-called Obama apology tour is a complete fabrication, assembled by taking quotes out of context.

As Greg Sargent of The Washington Post has pointed out, there’s a common theme to these whoppers and a number of other things Mr. Romney has said: the strategy is clearly to portray the president as a suspect character, someone who doesn’t share American values. And since Mr. Obama has done and said nothing to justify this portrait, Mr. Romney just invents stuff to make his case.

But won’t there be some blowback? Won’t Mr. Romney pay a price for running a campaign based entirely on falsehoods? He obviously thinks not, and I’m afraid he may be right.

Oh, Mr. Romney will probably be called on some falsehoods. But, if past experience is any guide, most of the news media will feel as though their reporting must be “balanced,” which means that every time they point out that a Republican lied they have to match it with a comparable accusation against a Democrat — even if what the Democrat said was actually true or, at worst, a minor misstatement.

This isn’t an abstract speculation. Politifact, the project that is supposed to enforce truth in politics, has declared Democratic claims that Republicans voted to end Medicare its “Lie of the Year.” It did so even though Republicans did indeed vote to dismantle Medicare as we know it and replace it with a voucher scheme that would still be called “Medicare,” but would look nothing like the current program — and would no longer guarantee affordable care.

So here’s my forecast for next year: If Mr. Romney is in fact the Republican presidential nominee, he will make wildly false claims about Mr. Obama and, occasionally, get some flack for doing so. But news organizations will compensate by treating it as a comparable offense when, say, the president misstates the income share of the top 1 percent by a percentage point or two.

The end result will be no real penalty for running an utterly fraudulent campaign. As I said, welcome to post-truth politics.

The corporate mainstream media is an abject failure. If Obama says the Earth is round and the Earth revolves around the Sun, the corporate mainstream media is compelled to report that Romney says the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around the Earth, as if both statements are equally true. It is a matter of "opinion" in "fair and balanced" reporting. Even though Obama is stating a demonstrably provable fact, and Romney is stating a demonstrably provable falsehood. The fact-free world of FAUX News Fraudcasting and its immitators in the mainstream media has resulted in the death of truth. And it may be the death of our democracy.

Indiana Secretary of State removed from office for voter fraud

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Well, isn't this ironic. Indiana, the state that could not produce a single prosecution for voter fraud into evidence in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008) in which the Court upheld the state's requirement for photo I.D. to vote on the grounds that "it could happen... maybe ... someday... you never know," finally has a conviction for voter fraud.

An Indianapolis county court has removed Indiana Secretary of State Charles White from office on charges of voter fraud relating to his 2010 election. Bwahahahaha! Charles White, Indiana Secretary Of State, Removed From Office:

The Marion County Circuit Court issued the order late Thursday afternoon in response to a Democratic Party civil suit alleging that White lied about his residency during the 2010 election to retain salary from a town councilman post he held. White is currently facing criminal charges stemming from the voter fraud allegations. In Indiana, the secretary of state also serves as the chief elections official.

The court order requires the state's Recount Commission to void White's 2010 election certification and award the secretary of state's post to runner-up Vop Osili (D). Osili was elected last month as a councilman for the Indianapolis-Marion County government.

WTHR in Indiana reports that the Recount Commission is seeking a stay of the ruling pending White's appeal, and requesting that White remain secretary of state pending a final outcome of the civil case.

The court's decision said that it does not "imply" that White's actions "were or were not fraudulent or committed a crime," but rather that he "knowingly registered in the wrong precinct." The court is deferring any questions of illegal activity for decision during the coming criminal trial, which begins on Jan. 30.

If convicted while still in office, White would be automatically unseated. Under this procedure, Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) would appoint a new secretary of state.

This is fair warning to candidates: with redistricting, there is always the temptation for candidates to play fast and loose with their place of residency (business address, ex-spouse's address, second residence, etc.) It is where you are domiciled, where you hang your hat every night, so to speak, that matters. This case is going to lead to closer scrutiny of your candidacy filings. I know that this has gone on in Arizona and everyone has turned a blind eye to it in the past, but no longer. Resist the temptation.

Really, Sen. Sylvia Allen said this

by David Safier

Either the Payson Roundup is writing April Fools stories a little early, or State Sen. Sylvia Allen -- she of the "earth is 6,000 years old" statement -- said this at a Payson Tea Party gathering.

[Allen] said the state should lay the groundwork for taking over much of the Forest Service land in the state and form an armed state guard to police the border with Mexico.

The Snowflake Republican represents all of Rim Country and said if Arizona doesn’t act “we’re going to become part of Mexico.”

Wait, she's not through. Allen hates AHCCCS -- "socialized medicine" -- but even worse is that it pays for women's pregnancies.

“We need to tighten this program up and have people pay for babies. That’s not life and death."

There's more. Allen hates things like mail-in ballots and online voter registration. They just increase the number of illegal immigrants voting.

“There are people voting who should not vote and there are lots of them. It’s bad enough that they’re here without permission.”

She has proof. You know why Russell Pearce was recalled?

“There were people at those markets who hated Russell Pearce. They were registering people for a month, but no one checked that. One reason they want open borders is they want to merge us with Mexico.

“They’re being lied to and told they can vote. We need to work on this. What are we going to do if people can’t see it’s you voting (with an online ballot or mail-in ballot). We need to see what we can do to protect our vote.”

Who knew all those illegals -- meaning, I suppose, anyone with brown skin, and maybe an accent -- were the reason for Pearce's 12% loss?

Talk louder, Sylvia, so everyone can hear you. Please. Then let people decide, is this the kind of Tea Party thinking they want running the state, or is it time to turn things around and elect people who are, oh, maybe a little less crazy?

Federal Judge enjoins South Carolina's version of SB 1070

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

On Thursday, United States District Judge Richard Mark Gergel handed down a preliminary injunction blocking several key parts of South Carolina's version of SB 1070. BREAKING: Federal Judge Blocks Key Provisions Of South Carolina's Anti-Immigrant Law | ThinkProgress:

The provisions blocked by Judge Gergel’s opinion include:

• Papers Please: The SC law makes it unlawful for immigrants to fail to carry immigration papers. This provision is now blocked under Judge Gergel’s order. Additionally, Judge Gergel’s order suspends a provision prohibiting immigrants from presenting fake immigration papers to law enforcement.
• No Rides For Undocumented Immigrants: The SC law makes it a felony punishable by up to five years in prison to “transport, move or attempt to transport” an undocumented immigrant “with intent to further that person’s unlawful entry into the United States” or to help that person avoid detection by authorities. This provision is now blocked.
• No Shelter For Undocumented Immigrants: Finally, the provision of the SC law making it a felony to “conceal, harbor or shelter” an immigrant for the same purposes forbidden under the provision prohibiting transportation is also blocked.

Judge Gergel’s opinion hews closely to longstanding precedents establishing that the federal government — and not the states — must be in charge of our nation’s immigration policy. For this reason, it is an important reaffirmation of the fact that America has one policy towards foreign nationals, just like it has one policy toward trade with China or one policy towards war with Iraq, not fifty different foreign policies for fifty different states.

Moreover, while Gergel leaves some parts of the law in effect, it is possible that more provisions of the law could be struck down at a future date.

Several immigrant rights groups challenged the entire law, but Judge Gergel found that they did not have legal standing to bring such a broad challenge. Accordingly, he did not reach the merits of the question of whether the entire law is unconstitutional, and a future lawsuit could do so.

UPDATE: South Carolina is having a really bad week in trying to be more like Arizona. Today, the Justice Dept. rejects South Carolina voter ID law, calling it discriminatory - The Washington Post:

[The Justice Department rejected] South Carolina’s measure requiring photo-identification at the polls as discriminatory against minority voters.

The decision by Justice’s Civil Rights Division could heighten political tensions over the new laws, which critics say could depress turnout among minorities and others who helped elect President Obama in 2008. A dozen states this year passed laws requiring voters to present state-issued photo identification, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Although Democratic governors vetoed four of the measures, liberal and civil rights groups have raised alarms about the remaining laws. Opponents of the laws say they would discriminate against minorities and others, such as low-income voters, because some don’t have the necessary photo identification and lack the means to easily obtain ID cards.

* * *

In its first decision on one of those new measures, the Justice Department said Friday that South Carolina’s law will discriminate against minority voters, though the department declined to take a position on whether the alleged discrimination was intentional. The law, passed in May and signed by Gov. Nikki Haley (R), requires voters to show a driver’s license or one of several other forms of photo identification.

Officials in South Carolina could not immediately be reached for comment Friday afternoon.

This Quote Says All That Need Be Said About Redistricting in Arizona

Posted by Michael Bryan

Republican's main complaint about the independent redistricting process really boils down to just this:

"It treats the Democrats as an equal party," said attorney Tim LaSota, a Republican who monitored the redistricting process as part of the FAIR Trust, a group of lawyers hired by Republican congressmen.

God forbid.

Certainly, if the redistricting process were still in the hands of the GOP politicos who controlled it until the voters said "Basta!" in 2000, the Dems would have been treated like a red-headed step-child.

Really, this quote is all you need to know about the controversies and unconstitutional over-reach by the GOP regarding the AIRC in recent months. The GOP are willing to try anything to prevent the Democrats from being treated as equals in Arizona. They think that a 100K registration advantage among 6.5 million citizens gives them the right to absolute control of our government.

Sometimes I'm less than grateful for the ballot initiative process because of the results. But the creation of the AIRC is a perfect example of why the framers of Arizona's Constitution felt it wise to give the people direct recourse to the ballot: to counterbalance a legislature bent on putting a thumb on the scales for the party in power, in order to preserve and entrench that power perpetually.

Merry Christmas Baby!

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Bruce Springsteen and the E. Street Band performing Merry Christmas Baby!, live on Conan O'Brien (2002). We lost Clarence Clemons this year. We miss you "Big Man." Heaven's got a helluva rock n' roll band.

Frosty the Snowman

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

One of the most unlikely pairings for a Christmas album that I have ever seen is Leon Redbone and Dr. John on the album "Christmas Island" (1987). Their duet of Frosty the Snowman.

The headline says it all

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The headline says it all: Senate, House OK tax-cut extension in victory for Obama A humbling retreat for House GOP, it passes despite lingering grumbling from 'tea party'":

Congress delivered a last-minute holiday tax cut extension to 160 million workers Friday along with further unemployment benefits for millions laid off in the nation's fierce recession and weak economic recovery. It was a convincing victory for President Barack Obama, a humbling retreat for House Republicans.

Back-to-back voice vote approvals of the measure by the Senate and House came in mere seconds with no debate, just days after House Republican leaders had insisted that more negotiations and a full-year bill were the only way to prevent an immediate tax increase on Jan. 1.

The measure passed despite lingering grumbling from tea party Republicans.

(Update) Pimps for Private Prisons and Profit

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Aahhh, so sad. It looks like our shadow governor, Chuck Coughlin and his lobbyist firm HighGround, Inc. won't be getting that Christmas bonus from their private prison clients.

Two breaking stories today from the Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required). First, the long-awaited cost-benefit analysis that the Department of Corrections is required to do by law, but has never done until now, has been released. According to the DOC, private prisons are comparable in cost and quality to state run prisons -- so much for the "blind faith" belief that privatization always leads to better and less costly service. It does not. Study: Private and state-run prisons comparable in cost and quality - Arizona Capitol Times:

Most of Arizona’s private prisons are comparable in cost and quality of service to state-run prisons, a biennial study issued Wednesday by the Arizona Department of Corrections found.

According to the study, which was done for the first time despite being a requirement for over a decade, only one private prison provides a lower quality of service.

Department of Corrections Director Charles Ryan wrote in a letter to lawmakers that it is nearly impossible to make exact comparisons between state and private prisons.

“. . .(I)t is important to recognize that exact private prison unit versus state prison unit comparisons are not possible due to inherent complexities resulting from the many differences in operating structure and requirements,” Ryan wrote. “This is equally true when comparing facilities and when comparing cost.”

The cost-benefit analysis comes as bids for the construction of private prisons to house 5,000 inmates are pending.

Yeah, well not any longer. The DOC has decided to cancel bids to build 5,000 private prison beds in Arizona, it claims due to declining prisoner population (damn that the law of supply and demand!) Corrections ends plans for private prisons to house 5,000 inmates - Arizona Capitol Times:

The Arizona Department of Corrections has scrapped plans to build private prisons to house 5,000 minimum and medium security inmates.

Bill Lamoreaux, a department spokesman, said today that a decline in the inmate population in recent years led the agency to stop seeking bids from private companies and instead restart bidding for housing just 2,000 inmates.

The department is also going to ask the Legislature for funding to provide housing for an additional 500 maximum security inmates. Private prisons don’t incarcerate maximum security inmates.

* * *

Lamoreaux said the inmate population grew by only 65 inmates in fiscal year 2010 and declined by 296 inmates in fiscal year 2011, the lowest growth rates in the state since 1973.

Kudos to the Quaker group American Friends Service Commitee and their attorney Vince Rabago for suing to prevent the award of this private prison contract until the study required by law was completed. It turned out we didn't need those additional prison beds after all. The Quakers just saved taxpayers an unnecessary expense that would have unjustly enriched our shadow governor's private prison clients.

The Quakers will be back in court on the appeal of their case now that the DOC report has been issued. Maybe they can save taxpayers some more money.

UPDATE: Press release from the American Friends Service Commitee:

Private prison opponents applaud Arizona DOC decision to drop RFP for private prison beds; opponents criticize state's private prison report along with state's new proposal for 2,000 prison beds

(Dec. 23 2011 - Tucson, AZ) Today, The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) expressed appreciation to the Arizona Department of Corrections for issuing its long overdue report on private prison performance and for dropping plans for 5,000 new private prison beds. The group also points to flaws in the DOC report, and pledged to continue to challenge any proposals for new private prison beds.

On Wednesday, the Arizona Department of Corrections (DOC) issued its first-ever legally mandated report after more than 2 decades of failing to comply with state law by evaluating the quality of private prisons and comparing their performance to public prisons. DOC also dropped its plan to issue a contract for 5,000 new private prison beds, at a potential cost to taxpayers of over $500 million, citing the decline in crime and prison admissions.

In September 2011, AFSC sued Governor Jan Brewer and the Arizona Department of Corrections because of their failure to comply with state law for more than 2 decades by not reviewing private prisons as required by state law. While the suit was initially denied on procedural grounds regarding legal standing, AFSC appealed, and effectively forced the DOC to begin the required study.

AFSC Arizona Director Caroline Isaacs said the report issued Wednesday by the state about private prisons appears to have methodological flaws and problems in comparability of prisons.

Isaacs urged the public and legislators to examine AFSC's own "shadow" report on private prisons in Arizona for which the group issued preliminary findings(http://afsc.org/arizona-prison-report. ) in advance of the state's report. "Now that the state has issued its report, we will continue our work educating the public and contesting the state's wrong and entrenched view that private prisons are as good a deal for taxpayers or as safe as state-run prisons. All of the evidence and competent research in Arizona and across the country shows the opposite." The group plans to issue its full report in January when the Arizona legislature is in session.

AFSC's lead attorney in the case, Vince Rabago, stated "It is clear that our legal challenge effectively forced DOC to delay bids until the report was issued, and forced compliance with state law after decades of non-compliance." Rabago, a former state prosecutor, continued: "It's unfortunate that we had to sue to enforce Arizona law, to make DOC do their job. We will continue to make sure that the public knows that private prisons are simply bad public policy that do not save taxpayers any money and they put the public at a greater risk."

#####

State pension 'crisis' was manufactured - never mind

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Well isn't this special. Senate Republican leaders said Wednesday that they are crafting legislation to repeal a law that took effect in July requiring employees in the Arizona State Retirement System to contribute more to their pensions. Public employees' paychecks may grow:

[T]his is hardly a pay hike. In fact, all the move does is bring employees back to where they were before lawmakers went looking for cash to balance the state's budget.

Before July, the state and its workers in the main retirement plan each contributed an equal amount of the assessment levied to keep the fund financially solvent.

The legislation altered that to have workers pay 53 percent of the cost, reducing the burden on the state to 47 percent.

That same change was mandated for others in the pension plan, including workers at public schools, counties, community colleges, universities and some cities. And to bolster the state's bottom line, schools - but not others - were required to send whatever they saved to the state treasury.

All totaled, state officials figured they could pick up more than $41 million this budget year.

Senate Majority Leader Andy Biggs said Wednesday that the maneuver was made because lawmakers were simply out of options. And he said they realized the implications.

"That affects people's salaries directly," he said. "That was probably one of the last things that went into the budget ... to try to balance it. And it should be one of the first things to come out."

Biggs said that is now possible, with legislative budget staffers forecasting the state will end the fiscal year with more than $400 million in the bank.

It actually may not take legislative action to undo the law.

Last week a judge heard arguments by three unions representing teachers and state and local government workers that the change in the contribution rates is illegal.

Attorneys told Judge Eileen Willett that the Arizona Constitution says membership in a public retirement system is contractual and that "benefits shall not be diminished or impaired." They argued that altering the contribution formula to get the same benefit is tantamount to reducing the benefit.

I warned you that the pension "crisis" was manufactured. It was manufactured by the virulently anti-union Arizona Republic last fall when it ran a multi-part series on the "crisis" in public employee pension funds in Arizona. Public employee pension reforms - a manufactured 'crisis':

The Arizona Republic relied heavily on research from conservative think tanks and liberally quoted from Byron Schlomach of the Goldwater Institute in its reporting. As David Safier and I have demonstrated over the years, research from the Goldwater Institute is always suspect: they start with their desired conclusion and work backwards to create a plausible construct for their conclusion. It does not meet the standards of scientific research. The Goldwater Institute is no more credible than the "junk reports" produced by its sister organization, the Heritage Foundation.

* * *

The Tea-Publican Arizona Legislature then cited The Arizona Republic series as a reason for taking up public employee pension fund reforms during the past session. Regular readers know that this was part of a national legislative effort through the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and its affiliated members like the Goldwater Institute. Two reports on the tentacles of the Kochtopus and ALEC. The only question is whether The Arizona Republic was a complicit participant in this effort. We report, you decide.

* * * *

The legislature's contribution formula is unconstitutional and is being litigated in court. Lawsuit filed to challenge unconstitutional public pension reform law.

* * *

Arizona Court of Appeals judges filed a notice of claim over last session’s public pension reform bill and said they intend to challenge two provisions in the new law regarding the Elected Officials Retirement Program. Appellate judges threaten suit over pension reforms - Arizona Capitol Times.

It most certainly is unconstitutional, as I have previously posted. The legislation to repeal the law is simply the legislature acknowledging that what it did was illegal - "never mind."