Blog For Arizona

'The right to own a gun includes the right to destroy that gun'

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images. . . Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God. . .

Those who have made religious idols of guns and treat them as if they are holy relics ought to reread the first two Commandments. And then there are those who have a psycho-sexual fetish for guns. That is disturbing on many levels.

Arizona Daily Star editor Sarah Garrecht Gassen responds to the gun idolatry and fetish crowd who insist that no gun may ever be destroyed in an op-ed today, Gun owners have the right to destroy weapon if they choose:

The right to own a gun includes the right to destroy that gun. That's as American as apple pie.

A gun is not a sentient being in need of a savior. A gun is a tool - an efficient and deadly tool - but a tool.

A gun has the same rights as my toaster.

Yet those who make the physical preservation of guns paramount over all else act as if guns are an endangered species in need of devoted attention and loving protection.

This head-scratcher of a viewpoint fuels the frothing hysteria about the gun-buyback event planned for 9 a.m. today. Bring a gun you don't want, and don't want anyone else to have, to the Tucson Police Department midtown substation so it can be destroyed, and get a $50 grocery gift card in exchange.

And if you don't want to, then don't.

To hear criticism of the buyback, you'd think the British were coming. The prospect that a gun might be destroyed is heresy to its venerators.

But their vociferous opposition doesn't make sense - and it certainly isn't about protecting gun owners' rights.

No, it is idolatry and fetishism, Sarah.

2014 committees/speculation update

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

 

A brief post, mostly because there isn't much news yet...

...State Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills) has opened an exploratory committee for a run at the state senate seat in LD23 (North Scottsdale, Fountain Hills).  The Yellow Sheet Report (the Arizona Capitol Times' pricey political gossip sheet) reported this development as if it was unexpected news, but...

1.  The current state senator from LD23 is Michele Reagan, and she is (unofficially, at this point) running for AZ Secretary of State in 2014, leaving an opening there.

2.  Kavanagh is termed out of the House and cannot run for reelection to the House in 2014, which leaves a run for statewide office (probably doesn't have the name rec for such a run and I haven't heard of him expressing any interest in a statewide office), a run for Congress (which would probably mean a primary fight against David Schweikert, the incumbent member of Congress in his area, and Schweikert just beat up on the deep-pocketed Ben Quayle.  A Kavanagh challenge to him probably isn't feasible right now...plus I haven't heard of him expressing any interest in this area, either), or a run for state senate.

LD23 is a very Republican district; the winner of the R primary there *will* end up winning the general, and the two people who, in my estimation, could defeat him in the primary aren't interested (current State Sen. Michele Reagan is apparently running for another office, and former State Sen. Carolyn Allen is retired now).  Someone may step up and challenge him, but until he is actually defeated, the seat is presumed to be his for the taking.

In short, while this was reported as news, there is nothing unexpected here.

Republican legislative agendas: It's like deja vu all over again

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

 

In case anyone thought that the Republicans learned some lessons from their trouncing in November, think again.

In the US House, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-somewhere past the orbit of Pluto...ok, she's from Minnesota.  But this time of year, Pluto and MN are roughly the same temperature.  :) ) introduced, on the very first day of the 113th Congress, introduced HR45, a measure to repeal healthcare reform, also known as "ObamaCare" and HR46, a measure to repeal Dodd-Frank, the minimal increase in oversight of Wall Street and the financial services industry after the financial speculation bubble burst late in the last decade. (no text available for either measure as yet)

The Rs have been wailing against both measures basically since both were enacted; for example, in just the last Congress, the House Republicans voted to repeal health care reform 33 times.

None of their efforts made it through the Senate, and there's no reason to think that these will, if one or both even passes the House.  Of course, both HR45 and HR46 were assigned to *9* committees each, which may be the House Republican leadership's way of saying "quit wasting our time, Michele."

"Cleaning out the backpack", or "time to prepare for the 2013 session of the legislature"

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

Update on 12/28 -
 
Thanks go out to sharp-eyed regular reader Anna Johnson, a debate host at Civil Arizona.  There were two errors in the original post - Adam Driggs is the senator from Amanda Reeve's district, and Rich Crandall was not removed from the Senate Education Committee; he only lost the chairmanship.  He remains a member of the committee.  Lastly, she clarified that Linda Gray not only did not run for reelection, she had reached  her term limits.  All areas have been clarified or corrected.

Thanks again Anna!

End update...

When I attend events where I might possibly write about them, I usually have a small backpack with me (think: bookbag).  That pack serves as a container for my laptop, camera, extra pens, notebooks, cables and power cords for anything that might require them, etc., as well as a repository for any literature or swag that might come my way during a particular excursion.

As might be expected, that leads to a backpack full of stuff, and a backpack in need of periodic cleaning out.

Santa visits Newtown

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The cartoonist, who goes by Captain Cartoon, explains at www.captcartoon.com:

I've drawn nearly 35,000 caricatures, the vast majority of them children - and many from the Northeast! Throuhg my vast experience interacting with these angels, i feel a huge sense of loss over the Sandy Hook tragedy.

Along with countless millions of people from around the world, I continue to grieve over this monumental "someone's just crossed the line" travesty, and pray for the victims and their families.

BlogForArizona Commends Congressman Barber

By The Writers of BlogForArizona

Since the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, we at Blog for Arizona have urged Ron Barber to take the lead in Congress in advocating for common sense gun laws. We wrote numerous posts and started a petition that now has over 400 signatures. 

We have watched with deep admiration as Congressman Barber has taken increasingly strong stands on the subject and has occupied an ever more prominent place in the national conversation. His statement on December 19th (posted after the click) is an example of the kind of powerful, personal testimony we hoped to hear from him.

He should know that his constituents and supporters across Arizona, and the nation, stand firmly behind his efforts. Hopefully, this trend will continue, and we have increasing confidence it will. We know that if Ron speaks from his heart at every possible opportunity, millions of Americans will be moved and we just may wind up with sane gun laws as a result.

Read more after the click...

POSTS WILL CONTINUE BELOW

I survived the end of the world, and all I got was this video

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

12-22-12

Superstition and ignorance from the clowns of God who fear monger with Doomsday and Apocalyptic cults. Scratch another one off their list, the Mayan Apocalypse. Didn't happen. The History Channel (A&E Networks) just lost half of its programming. They'll always have that Nostradamus nonsense.

I survived the end of the world, and all I got was this video -- "Superstition" by Stevie Wonder, what I consider to be the greatest funk song ever.

Very superstitious, writing's on the wall,
Very superstitious, ladders bout' to fall,
Thirteen month old baby, broke the lookin' glass
Seven years of bad luck, the good things in your past.

When you believe in things
that you don't understand,
Then you suffer,
Superstition ain't the way

Video below the fold.

Christmas gifts that were cool when we were kids

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Kids nowadays all want a computer and smartphone, and Playstation 3 and Nintendo Wii video game consoles with a full compliment of videogames. Damn, kids are expensive! I almost never see kids playing baseball or football in the street, or even riding a bicycle anymore.

Which got me to thinking about the gifts that we thought were cool when we were kids. The Internet is an amazing place, my friends. This one falls into the category of "things I never knew existed."

I did a Google search for the Sears Wishbook from the 1960s, and while there are many web sites that come up on a search, I ran across this one that just blew my mind. Talk about taking a trip back in time in Mr. Peabody's WABAC machine!

Someone has actually taken the time to archive the Sears Wishbook (and from other department stores) for posterity all the way back to 1933. WishbookWeb.com. Awesome!

Legislative committee assignments: Portents for 2013

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

 

Recently, AZBlueMeanie at Blog for Arizona posted the list of committees and their chairs for the upcoming legislative session.  As the Republicans control both chambers of the lege, they get to decide which committees exist and who runs them.

While I can't predict what legislation they will try to slough off on the state this year (though the list of ALEC model legislation should provide a good hint), the list of chairs and committees may provide some insight in what to expect, and not expect, from the 2013 session of the lege.

The writing life: Writing routines of the rich and famous... and me

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Years ago, I heard author Barbara Kingsolver give a talk on "The Writing Life"-- inspiration vs blockage... stolen moments on sleepless nights, writing in her closet... writing boring technical reports as an information specialist at The University of Arizona... and her life before she became famous. Having been an information specialist at the UA, I could relate easily to her stories about writing for work vs stealing away time to write for yourself.

I also enjoyed learning about her writing routines-- like writing in a walk-in closet at night in their tiny Tucson house, so she wouldn't wake her husband. I recently stumbled upon an article detailing the writing habits of famous authors-- Joan Didion, Jack Kerouac, Ray Bradburry, and others.

For a peek at their writing habits and their lives, read on.

Want to Leave the Union? Just Move...

By Michael Bryan

It seems a lot of folks are so upset by that black Muslim Communist winning a second term that they are ready to split... from the Union. People from more than 20 states have created petitions on the White House web site to allow their states to leave the Union. Including Arizona, of course. You can get a look at this modern George Washington who started Arizona's petition in a report from CBS5.

I actually can sympathize with these folks to some extent. I was pretty darn upset and disappointed when George W. Bush stole the Presidency (IMHO) in 2000. I said, and wrote, a bunch of stupid and angry things at the time. I'm sure that many will similarly regret their pique and come back to their senses when the black helicopters fail to land on their lawns.

What I never did was give up on America. These folks seem to have done so. Thier hatred and fear of Obama, and liberalism (or to be more stingingly accurate - moderate conservatism) in general, is apparently greater than their love of their country. I find this surprising. I never suspected that the conservatives I disagree with didn't love their country and respect our democratic system - now I have evidence to the contrary.

If you love America, you stay and fight to make it a better place - no matter what happens in government. Conservatives and jingoists (if there is any non-overlapping domain in that Venn diagram) often say, "America - love it, or leave it!" Doesn't it mean you don't love it if you choose to leave it? 

Just look at America today. We have a re-elected Democratic President, a Democratic Senate, we are winding down Bush's wars, and America has a growing sense of purpose in addressing the massive political and economic problems of our nation. Who could have predicted this in the slough of despond we progressives found ourselves in 2000? Would any of that have been possible if Democrats had decamped for Canada en masse, or tried to sever our liberal states from the Union?

If you love your country, you stay and fight to make it better - you don't slink off with your toys because you don't like the way the game is going. Maybe that's why the cowards who sign these petitions to the White House don't display thier last names. They are (rightfully) embarrassed.

Chris Rock urges white voters to vote for a 'white guy you can trust'-- Barack Obama (video)

by Pamela Powers Hannley

These days, there is a poll for every statistic you want to promote. Some polls have shown that undecided white men-- unlike women, blacks, gays, Latinos, and those elite smart people-- are leaning toward Mitt Romney for president.

Comedian Chris Rock has recorded a special message for those undecided white folks. See the video after the jump.

Romney style (video)

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Maybe I'm getting slap-happy after months of non-stop campaigning, 100 fundraising e-mails a day, too much "what if?" anxiety, swinging polls, and more candidate house invitations than I can name...

If you're feeling the same way and you're ready for a chuckle, check out the video after the jump.

Presidential knockout: If you're still undecided after debate II, you're not paying attention

by Pamela Powers Hannley

The second 2012 presidential debate was a rousing throwback to old school American politics. Both candidates were "fired up and ready to go." Both delivered a few zingers and gotcha moments. Both explained their plans for America's future... well, sort of.

Republican challenger Mitt Romney-- obviously hoping for a repeat of the frist debate in which he appeared energized, arrogant, and on top of his game, if you ignore the lies and the moderator bullying-- started the second debate smiling and upbeat. About 30 minutes into it, Romney was scowling in the background as President Barack Obama actually answered policy questions. By the end of the debate, when the families came on stage, both Romney and wife Ann had those "holy shit what just happened?" looks on their faces.

So, why was the second debate so different from the first one? Obviously, after the first debate, Obama realized that Romney wasn't going to play by anyone's rules but his own (ie, stick to the truth, stick to the question topics, stick to his previously stated views, or stick to the agreed upon debate rules). In the first debate, Obama seemed confused and frustrated by Romney's reckless but masterful disregard for propriety, and Obama didn't call him out on it, which is why, I believe, many people said Obama was "off his game" that night. Where was our witty, intelligent guy? Why didn't he point his finger at Romney and say, in prep school style, "You, Sir, are a liar!" Or, in Chicago style, "What you talkin' bout, n....?" [Sarcasm alert.]

Last night, Obama-- and moderator CNN's Candy Crowley-- took the gloves off with the prep school bully turned vulture capitalist. Obama and Crowley both called out Romney when he didn't answer the questions or answered a completely different question than what was asked. In his element with the town hall format, the president was quick-witted and light on his feet, when he said that Romney's economic plan was a "sketchy deal"; when he said that Romney didn't have a five-point plan, he had a one-point plan; when he ripped Romney's infamous 47% comment (after Romney opened the door by saying he cared about 100% of Americans); or when he answered the first college student's questions about post-graduation employment with a specific list of policies (when Romney had just shined the student on with platitudes).

But I think the best performance of the evening was by Crowley. Let's face it. Jim Lehrer blew the first debate. He allowed Romney steamroll him... repeatedly. The debate was such a mess that it was difficult to figure out the format or what the questions were half the time because both candidates (but mostly Romney) were allowed to stray. Crowley-- who is being attacked today by the right for her active role in actually moderating the debate-- did her best to keep the debate moving and make the candidates stick to the format and the questions.

Personally, I don't see how anyone could be undecided after last night, but if you are, undecided, check out this story by the New York Times after the jump and get off your duff.

Why Obama Now (video)

by Pamela Powers Hannley

After the jump, watch a 3:44 minute video on why anyone who makes less than $1 million per year should vote to re-elect President Barack Obama. 

This is not rocket science, people. If you're undecided, you haven't been paying attention for the past 30 years. Vive la 99%.

Arizona Ballot Propositions 2012

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

Mike Bryan wrote a post on this very topic a few months ago, but he invited the other writers here to weigh in on the subject.  Here is my contribution.

 

At last count (and subject to change, depending on court rulings), Arizona voters will be considering nine ballot questions in November.  While I've pretty much decided how I'm going to vote ("no" on all questions except for Proposition 204), a look at each question is merited.  I'll be taking a position on each measure and stating why I hold that position.  However, I urge all readers to read and study the propositions for themselves and cast their votes based on what they think is best for the state.

First, some resources -

The League of Women Voters of Arizona ballot proposition guide is here - English/Spanish.
The Arizona Secretary of State's webpage for its proposition publicity pamphlet is here.
Michael Bryan of Blog for Arizona offers a thorough and well-written guide here. 

The first two are neutral (though cynic that I am, if I was only discussing the AZSOS' guide, the word "ostensibly" would be used to modify "neutral"); Mike Bryan openly takes positions on the measures.  I disagree with a couple of those positions, but on those questions, there isn't a "good" position, just a "less bad" one.

On to the questions -

Part two: Arizona Politics 101 - "Peanuts! Crackerjack! Scorecards! Ya can't tell the players without a scorecard!"

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

Note: The first part of this post is here.  That one was mostly about abbreviations; this one will have some of that, but it is more about the specifics of Arizona politics, particularly regarding the state capitol.
 
Again, let me be clear - neither this post nor its predecessor is meant to be considered definitive or complete.  They're just primers.

Some of the players and forces at play at the Capitol:

 

- Arizona's governor (currently Jan Brewer) is handicapped by the fact that Arizona, like most western states, utilizes a "weak executive" model of government. The governor's two biggest political tools are the veto pen and the job title, and the public soapbox that goes with it. Otherwise, the governor can't do much that isn't specifically approved by the legislature.

The current governor isn't known as the brightest light in the nighttime sky, but she's bright enough to have held office (of one sort or another) since the early 1980s. Not sure if that is evidence that she is underrated intellectually, or that the intellectual requirements necessary to get into elected office in Arizona are overrated.

Brewer ascended to the governor's office, which is physically located on the ninth floor of the Executive Tower at the AZ Capitol (hence, the occasional use of "the Ninth Floor" to describe the administration/governor's office in general) when her predecessor, Janet Napolitano, accepted the job of US Secretary of Homeland Security in 2009.

Brewer won election to her own term in 2010 after she signed SB1070, the infamous anti-immigrant law that has basically been eviscerated by the courts. However, the bill was a strong enough sop to the nativist wing of the AZGOP to clear what had been a crowded primary field, and to propel her to a general election victory over Democratic nominee Terry Goddard.

She has basically been a rubber stamp for the Republican caucus in the lege, wielding her veto pen  only on certain extreme measures where the legislative support for a measure was weak enough that her veto wouldn't be overridden.

She is term-limited and will not be able to run for re-election in 2014.

The main "power behind the throne" is well-connected lobbyist Chuck Coughlin. Reputed to be the brains of the Brewer political operation, Couglin was/is employed as a lobbyist by the Corrections Corporation of America, which just received a contract from the state for private prison cells that the state doesn't need.

Part one: Arizona Politics 101 - "Peanuts! Crackerjack! Scorecards! Ya can't tell the players without a scorecard!"

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

 

After writing this blog for 6+ years, I've noticed that I tend to write in a sort of shorthand, using abbreviations more often than I should and writing as if all readers know the backstory of the elected officials, candidates, players (lobbyists, mostly) and situations here in AZ (See? An abbreviation!  "AZ" is short for "Arizona").

Originally, this post was going to include the works - abbreviations, players, backstory (stuff that I tend to assume everyone already knows, so I tend to just reference it, but not necessarily explain it) - but the post was getting to be incredibly, and unreadably, long, and still wasn't close to being complete.

Time to break it into parts.

As such, the first post will be a list of abbreviations and nicknames.  It won't be comprehensive, not hardly, but it should be a good start.

Also, while there will be a few mentions of matters of a partisan nature, neither this nor the next post aren't ideological hit pieces.  I'll just be discussing some of the practical applications of power in Arizona.

If I leave out something that you believe should be included, let me know in a comment or an email.

The Rs' LD13 primary mess: Unleash the lawyers!

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

On Tuesday, the Arizona Capitol Times broke the story that Darin Mitchell, one of the winners of the LD13 Republican primary for a seat in the Arizona House of Representatives, apparently doesn't live in that district.

Note: the link is to my post about the story; the Cap Times' story is now behind a subscriber paywall.

The incumbent legislator that Mitchell ousted, Russ Jones, took a few days to mull his options, ultimately deciding to file a lawsuit filed in Maricopa County Superior Court (link courtesy KPNX-TV).

In the lawsuit, Jones asks the court to enjoin (aka - forbid) the AZ Secretary of State and the county recorders in Maricopa and Yuma counties (LD19 spans parts of both counties) from placing Mitchell's name on the general election ballot.

He also asks for court costs and attorney fees, but does *not* specifically ask the court to place his name on the ballot in Mitchell's stead.

I'm not a lawyer, so take this with a big grain of salt (meaning that I could be way off here), but I don't think this is going to go far.

1.  There is a 10-day period after the deadline for filing candidate petitions in June when
candidates (and non-candidates) can challenge the ballot eligibility of other candidates.  Fisher availed himself of that time to challenge the petitions of another candidate, successfully forcing that candidate out of the race; Jones did not challenge Mitchell's residency at that time.  I'm guessing that the Court will be loathe to give Jones a second opportunity at this late date, particularly in order to overturn the results of an election.

2.  There are a couple of typos in the legal filing.  It refers to Mitchell as "Shaw" a couple of times -

From page 4 of the linked .pdf

There was another instance of this on page 5 of the filing.

The typos alone might not be enough for the Court to dismiss the filing (I think "intent" is obvious here, and I think that the filers clearly intended to name "Mitchell", not some mysterious "Shaw", but
I really don't know), but if the Court is looking for a way to not get involved in this mess, the typos could give it a technical, rather than substantive (and hence, easily reversible), excuse to dismiss.

3.  Neither I, nor anyone I talked to about this, is aware of any Arizona case law that is on point about this (to be fair, neither I nor the people I spoke to are attorneys, so there may be an obscure case that we missed), so if the Court does take any position on this, they'll be setting precedent.


Depending on the latitude that the Court has (and this was something I really would have preferred to ask an attorney about), they could split hairs, saying that it is too late to knock Fisher off of the ballot, but because of the residency issue it could determine that Fisher is ineligible to serve in the lege until he meets the residency requirement.

In addition, if Fisher is actually kicked off of the general election ballot, it creates a real mess because that would only leave one ballot candidate for the two House seats that are up for election - incumbent Steve Montenegro (R).  No Democrats, Independents, or other party candidates are on the general election ballot.  That means that the 2nd seat would go to whichever candidate runs the best write-in campaign.

If that happens, and a credible Democrat in LD13 wants to step up, call me.  I'll volunteer for your campaign.  I'm pretty sure that the MCDP has my number, or you can email me or reach out on Facebook.


Having said all that, I love this stuff, and not just in a "better them than us" sort of way (though I freely admit that I'm glad this is happening with the Rs and not the Ds).

This stuff is fascinating, in a "nuts and bolts" of politics way.

Yes, I'm a political geek, and yes, I'm proud of it.

 

Have a problem with something the Rs have done or will do? Well..."Don't boo, vote!"

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

 

These days, political conventions have become a steady stream of speakers standing up and say why their side is "good" and the other side is "bad".  The speeches are just different ways of repeating standard talking points (this is one of the few areas that the "both sides do it" folks are right about).

However, once in a while, even in the canned speeches, something strikes home as a profound truth.  That happened tonight in the speech by Cristina Saralegui, a Latina journalist, talk show host, and actress (emphasis mine) -

On immigration,
Governor Romney's views could not be more extreme. He says we should make life
so unbearable for eleven million people that they simply "self-deport." He said
that Arizona's immigration law should be a "model" for our country. He even made
the architect of that terrible law an immigration advisor for his campaign. No
protesten—voten!

 

"No protesten--voten!"  In English, "don't boo--vote!"

It's that simple folks.  Regardless of which single issue is most important to you - the Republican war on women, attacks on immigrants, oppression of minorities, all of the above, or even more, the first and best step to changing things for the better is to VOTE.

People who choose to sit out the election because they don't think either side is perfect (and to be clear, neither side is perfect.  Though the Rs are more imperfect than the Ds. :) ) are free to make that choice.  However, by doing so, well, as far as I'm concerned, when things don't improve, they won't be in a position to point fingers.

Except at the person in the mirror.

Note:  On this day when a federal judge declined to strike down the "DWB" ("Driving While Brown") provision of AZ's infamous immigration law known as SB1070, Ms. Saralegui's comments are particularly on point.

Saturday... Well... Weekend? Editorial August 11th, 2012

By Michael Bryan

I'd like to let you all know that Drinking Liberally will be meeting this week at the regular time and place (Wednesday, 6pm at The Shanty). This week our guest is... Me! I will be presenting the Propositions that will appear on this November's ballot (and a few that might not be...). We'll discuss the pros and cons (where such exists) and a have a few beers. For a preview, or if you can't make it, you can take a look at my 2012 Ballot Prop Guide.

I personally read almost every news source in Arizona - and keep up with national reaction to our politics, as well. I do it to bring you readers of BlogForArizona the Arizona Donkey Feed, which appears on our right-hand sidebar every day (you may also have the Feed emailed to you daily). Sometimes the avalanche of information available in our 24/7 news cycle can be overwhelming. I do generally succeed in keeping the Feed topically restricted to Arizona politics. But it is a lot of noise to sort through, so, I decided I might like to sit down once a week and take some time to look around, and try to get some perspective on the news.

This week, I chose to present an extended rumination on the Jared Loughner plea and the Arpaio trial. I sense some connections that might not be entirely obvious.

Read more after the click...

Andy Thomas' Judicial Tyranny Conspiracy Theories

By Michael Bryan

Disgraced and disbarred, almost-Arizona-Attorney-General Andy Thomas published a conspiracy-theory laced diatribe on 'judicial tyranny'. It is an impressively reality-challenged piece of political propaganda. The defining feature of propaganda is hyperbolic and unsupported assertions lacking any sort of proof or factual basis: Andy's rant has this feature in spades.

Let's take a look at what Andy has to say, and point out it's many, many problems. Andy is in bold and I'm in italics...

[hat tip to Sonoran Alliance for publishing this oozing sore on the face of our public life...]

Read the oozing sore, and my attempt to apply antibiotic, after the click...

It should be an active third party expenditure year

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings (most of my recent posts have been Maricopa-centric or have been covered by the other writers here, but this one covers material that they haven't covered, plus it features everybody's favorite Baja bully, Frank Antenori, hence the cross-post :)) )...

Note:  there is July 30 update below the fold...

...I don't mean that the Libertarians, Greens, or some other party will experience significant electoral success, but that there will be a *lot* of "third party" spending to influence elections (meaning spending from non-candidate and non-political party groups).  And not just at the federal level, either (which is what this post is about).

There have been a large number of new state-level committees formed this year to serve as conduits for election-influencing money.  A sampling, with filer ID number (for now, I'm only looking at committees with filer IDs issued in 2012, and leaning toward those that have reported accepting/expending money, though there will be exceptions to that) -

Pearce Sets a New Bar for Offensiveness Among Arizona Politicians

By Michael Bryan

Pearce and his friend the mass murderer

Russell Pearce is a terrible human being. He should be condemned, and then shunned and ignored in our political life. If only he would shut the hell up, I would pleased to never have to mention him again.

In response to the horrific slaughter of innocents in Aurora, CO, Pearce shared the following insipid statement on his Facebook page:

"Lives were lost because of a bad man, not because he had a weapon, but because noone was prepared to stop it."

In Pearce's worldview, the problem Aurora highlights is not that a mad man had access to assault weapons and used them on his fellow citizens, but that those citizens weren't sufficiently armed and ready to meet the threat.

Yes, the killer was a bad man, but he had far more than just 'a weapon'. He had a fucking armoury. He had four guns with hundreds of rounds of ready ammunition. He had body armour from head to toe. His home was full of IEDs that required the evacuation of surrounding apartment buildings and are still being disarmed.

Consider how that night might have been different if that bad, mad man had not been able to arm and armour himself to the degree that he posed a lethal threat to the lives and safety of his fellow citizens - including the police. If he had not been able to legally aquire the assault weapons that allowed this unstable monster to mow down dozens of his fellow human beings in moments? If he had not been able to armour himself to a degree that he was effectively immune to any civilian weapon?

If this bad man had not been able to transform himself into a walking terminator, then perhaps Pearce would have a point, albeit an insensitive and boorish one. But to place the burden of self-protection on every citizen, when any mad man has the means and legal right to purchase equipment more suited to a war zone than a suburban movie theater, is to stack the deck against peaceful citizens and ensure that more innocents will be gunned down by ferociously armed-to-the-teeth mad murderers.

For Pearce to claim that this tragedy was not a result of the uniquely loose nature of America's gun laws, but to lack of weapons among those in the theater is absurd, stupid, and insulting - much like the man himself.

I do believe that responsible citizens should have the right to own and carry guns for hunting, sport, and self defense. But no American outside the armed forces or police has any need - nor should one have the legal right - to arm himself with the sort of equipment that makes one such a dire threat to public safety. 

Assault rifles and high-capacity ammunition systems have no place in the armoury of any citizen merely interested in defense of themselves and others, sport, or hunting. No private person going about their daily lives has a need for the sort of combat weapons to which this monster had legal access.

Allowing the sale of such equipment is an unacceptable threat to public safety, because the only possible use of such weaponry is the sort of mass slaughter we've far too frequently in our nation.

Or political terrorism. Or armed insurrection.

Given the proclivities and history of the reactionary right in this country, maybe that explains the real motive of the right-wing paranoids who would block any legislation that would protect our citizens from such weapons of slaughter.

Saturday Editorial, July 21, 2012

In the flurry of news and opinion gusting out of our computer screens and smart phones, it is easy to become 'news blind' - so focused on the flakes and flurries that we forget where we are headed. We stumble confusedly ahead with no map to our destination. It's easy to get lost in the storm.

I personally read almost every news source in Arizona - and keep up with national reaction to our politics, as well - in bringing to readers of BlogForArizona the Arizona Donkey Feed, which appears on our right-hand sidebar every day (you may also have the Feed emailed to you daily). So I, too, often find myself in that blizzard without a map.

I decided I might like to sit down once a week and take some time to look around, and identify what I think are the most significant landmarks around where we stand now. It might not be a map that will tell us where we are headed, but maybe I can get some idea of where we are. Over time, perhaps it will become a map of sorts.

I would also like to let you all know that Matt Heinz, candidate for Congressm in AZ's CD 2, will be guest-host at Drinking Liberally in Tucson. Come down to the Shanty of 4th Avenue this Wednesday at 6pm and enjoy a beer with Matt.

So, here are some thoughts on what I think are the most important, or just most interesting, developments in the past week in Arizona's politics...

Saturday Editor's Notes

By Michael Bryan

In the flurry of news and opinion gusting out of our computer screens and smart phones, it is easy to become 'news blind' - so focused on the flakes and flurries that we forget where we are headed. We stumble confusedly ahead with no map to our destination. It's easy to get lost in the storm.

I personally read almost every news source in Arizona - and keep up with national reaction to our politics, as well - in bringing to readers of BlogForArizona the Arizona Donkey Feed, which appears on our right-hand sidebar every day (you may also have the Feed emailed to you daily). So I, too, often find myself in that blizzard without a map.

I decided I might like to sit down once a week and take some time to look around, and identify what I think are the most significant landmarks around where we stand now. It might not be a map that will tell us where we are headed, but maybe I can get some idea of where we are. Over time, perhaps it will become a map of sorts.

I would also like to let you all know that Jim Nintzel of Tucson Weekly and AZPM's Roundtable fame will be guest-host at Drinking Liberally in Tucson. Come down to the Shanty of 4th Avenue this Wednesday at 6pm and experience the Nintz first-hand.

So, here are some thoughts on what I think are the most important, or just most interesting, developments in the past week in Arizona's politics.

Romney crashes the Antoinette family reunion

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

 

OK, not really, but he spent the weekend partying with his friends in the Hamptons, and charging the "friends" $50K a head for that rather dubious privilege.

But at least he wasn't gauche enough to make the party "BYOB"...

h/t to Taegan Goddard's Political Wire for the heads-up on this

From the LA Times, written by Maeve Reston -

As protesters assembled on a beach in advance of Mitt Romney's evening event at the home of conservative billionaire David Koch, the candidate slipped to East Hampton for his first of three fundraisers on this tony stretch of Long Island.

The line of Range Rovers, BMWs, Porsche roadsters and one gleaming cherry red Ferrari began queuing outside of Revlon Chairman Ronald Perelman's estate off Montauk Highway long before Romney arrived, as campaign aides and staffers in white polo shirts emblazoned with the logo of Perelman's property -- the Creeks -- checked off names under tight security.

The "Antoinette" quote came a little later in the story -

A New York City donor a few cars back, who also would not give her name, said Romney needed to do a better job connecting. "I don't think the common person is getting it," she said from the passenger seat of a Range Rover stamped with East Hampton beach permits. "Nobody understands why Obama is hurting them.

"We've got the message," she added. "But my college kid, the baby sitters, the nails ladies -- everybody who's got the right to vote -- they don't understand what's going on. I just think if you're lower income -- one, you're not as educated, two, they don't understand how it works, they don't understand how the systems work, they don't understand the impact."

"They don't understand"??  WTF?!? 

People understand that while the economy has grown over the last few decades, the vast majority of the benefits of that have helped only the wealthiest 1%.

And we understand that Romney will work only to widen the economic disparity that is devastating America.

Romney is widely viewed as aloof, dismissive and out of touch with the average American (if
"average" means 99% of us).

It seems that his plan to remedy that, if there is a plan at all, is to hang out people who may actually be more contemptuous of America and Americans than him, and hope that he looks good by comparison.

Given that he pulled this stunt on the weekend before President Obama proposed helping America's middle class by extending the Bush-era tax cuts on income under $250K, I think he needs a new plan.

I Presume Due Credit Will Be Given To Obama?

By Michael Bryan

KOLD 13 reports: AZ gasoline prices down for 10th week in row.

I presume that Arizona's GOP candidates are now cutting ads praising President Obama for his leadership in using that lever labeled "Gas Prices" hidden under his desk? You can't have it both ways, guys and gals. If you blame him for high prices, you have to credit him when they come down, don't you?

Oh, that's right. They don't. IOKIYAR.

 

Mitt Romney Enjoyed Impersonating a Police Officer When Young

by Michael Bryan

OK. This is disturbingly weird. National Memo reports that Mitt Romney used to enjoy impersonating a police officer, with a full uniform provided by his daddy the Governor, to pull folks over and prank people. [hat tip to Donna at Democratic Diva]

See the video segment from MSNBC's Lawrence O’Donnell, which Donna refers to.

"So, what?" you might ask. Well, just consider for a moment how this story would play out if it were Barack Obama who enjoyed this particular brand of entertainment. As Donna pointed out in her post, the GOP would have a field day portraying Obama as some sort of dangerous, freakish menace to society. Obama would be indicted by now - statutes of limitation be damned.

What Romney was doing was a crime, and a serious one. One which is done to enable other serious crimes like robery, home invasion, rape, and even terrorism (Anders Breivik got himself and his weapons to the crime scene by impersonating an officer).

Now, there's no evidence that Romney was out victimizing people criminally with his little stunts, but we know he did pull off a really mean prank using his fake cop routine. And that's just what has come to light so far. How much longer before people in Wisconsin start remembering those bizzare incidents back in the mid-60s when they were pulled over by a handsome, oddly young-looking, officer in a white Rambler?

What really interests me about this behavior, however, is what it reveals of Romney's psychology. Dr. Naftali Berrill, a psychologist who runs the New York Center for Neuropsychology and Forensic Behavioral Science, says of police impersonators, "They feel a certain sense of powerlessness. They fantasize they'd have power and be respected if they were a cop, or they have the fantasy of being a hero."

Could Romney's fantasy role-playing be an eloborate power fantasy? What power fantasy could be more compelling for a young man who feels his own powerlessness acutely in the shadow of a very powerful father?

Romney is not the first Presidential wanna-be that struggled with the legacy of a powerful and accomplished father. George W. Bush comes to mind. Romney's father was a CEO of AMC, Governor of Wisconsin, and, before his odd comments about being "brain-washed" by the command staff in Vietnam, the leading contender for the GOP nomination for President in 1968 (coincidentally[?] around the time of Romney's police fantasies).

Was Romney's desire to feel the esteem and respect accorded an officer of the law so extreme he was willing to commit the crime of impersonating an officer to experience it? Is Romney so driven by the need to bolster his self-esteem that it has led him to out-do his father's accomplishments by succeeding wildly in business, become a Governor himself, actually capture the GOP nomination for President, and possibly the Presidency itself?

Could we avoid all of this just by getting Romney a uniform with a POTUS seal on the sleeves, giving him some sort of ginned up POTUS badge, and letting him go around impersonating a President?

 

Karl Reiner: Ordinary People Buffeted by Extraordinary Events

By Karl Reiner

The Great Recession was caused by covetous bankers, slapdash regulation, a glut of cheap money and too much enthrallment with home ownership.  Since peaking at 10% in 2009, the unemployment rate has been on a slow decline, unfortunately ticking back up to 8.2% in May.  Chronic underemployment has been the only alternative for millions more.  The housing market remains spongy; many homeowners owe more on their property than it is currently worth. The foreclosure rate remains near record levels, the nation’s home ownership rate is sliding downward.

Recent surveys reflect the consequences of the recession.  Americans are down in the dumps.  Only 28% of the population is satisfied with the current state of things in the country.  Dissatisfaction with the current status runs high, about 70%.  Depending on the locality, between 69% and 83% of Americans think the country remains in recession. Other polls show that only half of the population believes a recovery is really underway.

A survey conducted in 12 swing states found that 55% of those polled supported the notion that the jobs created so far in the recovery were of lower quality than the jobs lost in the recession.  About 35% of those surveyed believe America’s best days are behind it.
By a margin of two to one, melancholy Americans expect their children’s jobs, salaries and benefits to be worse than their own.  

Federal spending and debt are considered by 82 % of those polled to be as important as the unemployment problem.  The federal debt is hovering around $15.7 trillion, pushed up by the recession’s debilitating impact.  The government’s aggressive stimulus spending and frantic effort to patch up the financial system moderated the recession’s effect. We should not forget that it would have been a lot worse without government intervention.  

Although policymakers tried hard, the slow recovery has put a big dent in America’s productive capacity and confidence.  Things, however, are not quite as appalling as the polls indicate. Economists are predicting an average U.S. growth rate of over 2% for 2012 and 2013.  Although not a surge, it is fairly good for an economy recovering from a major financial meltdown.  After all, the recession sopped up $800 billion in stimulus spending and another $700 billion in bailouts to banks and industry as the government struggled to stabilize the situation.  

The Executive Branch and Congress should be cooperating on a plan to get the debt problem under control in the medium-term.  Instead, the Tea Party’s supporters in Congress maintain a rigid focus on cutting spending.  Economists already know that reining in spending is less a drag on the economy than raising taxes.  They also know the federal debt problem is so large that some tax increases cannot be avoided.  As the members of Congress trade barbs, wary taxpayers worry about who will get stuck with paying the bill and the unsettling effect the political gridlock has on the recovery.

As did the Great Depression of the 1930s, the Great Recession has had a global impact.  Growth is slowing in China, India and Brazil.  In just five years, Greece’s economy has shrunk by 13%.  Greece now totters on the verge of leaving the Euro.  Spain has an unemployment rate of 24.1%.  Its bankruptcy filings climbed by over 21% in the first quarter of 2012.  Portugal and Italy are beset by a cycle of slow growth and declining competitiveness.

The crisis may have halted European integration as the risk of a Greek exit from the Euro increases.  As Europe struggles to contain the damage, the euro-zone’s GDP is expected to contract in the second quarter of 2012.  The unsettling economic and political repercussions bouncing around the globe will make it harder for the U.S. recovery to stay on track.  If it can be maintained, a 2% U.S. growth rate will look mighty good.

President Bain

By Dr. Jim Saunders

Inasmuch as I have of late publicly derided Mr. Romney’s campaign, premised as it has been on his superior knowledge of business and economic matters, I am writing here to make equally public my withdrawal of my erroneous jeers.  I have previously stated that in my view Mr. Romney’s experience was of the same character as that of Bluebeard, Captain Kidd, Black Bart and even at times Captain Hook.  I envisioned Captain Romney at the helm of the Bain, Jolly Roger flapping high on the mainmast, closing in on smaller ships, his crew swarming aboard, removing all of value, cutting down their sails and leaving them to founder.

I was wrong.  My error was twofold.  First, in that law sanctioned Captain Romney’s actions, and second, in that I had no evidence that Bluebeard or any of the others deemed themselves qualified to be President of the United States.  I should more properly have said that Captain Romney was a privateer.  Like Barbarossa, Sir Francis Drake, Sir Walter Raleigh, and others given letters of marque by their own or other governments.  

Privateers were licensed by governments, while pirates were not.  Pirates stole for their own wealth, paid no taxes, and buried their treasure on foreign shores.  Privateers took from foreign ships and returned their treasure to the governments who had commissioned them.

I see now that my prior characterization was simplistic.  Captain Romney does not fit neatly into either category.  Nonetheless, serving as Captain of the Ship of State is far different than standing at the helm of the Good Ship Bain, telescope in hand, looking for ships to plunder.

We Americans have experience with privateers.

Today those who decry the growth of government wish to outsource government services from education, to policing, prison management, the military, water services and waste management.  They may not realize that American government outsourcing began before the nation was founded, when in March 1776 the Continental Congress, not having a navy at its disposal, enacted a process to commission privateers to support the American Revolution.  Unlike present legislators, that early Congress created uniform rules of conduct for these “private contractors” and required them to post bonds to guarantee their proper conduct.

Today our government purchases services estimated to cost the taxpayers* at least twice what it otherwise cost to have those same services provided by the government.  At the extreme (one hopes) is the example of contractor services in the Iraq war, where individual contractors were reputedly hired for ten times the cost of having American GI’s perform the same functions.  But I digress, or do I?

Consider the prospect of government run by privateers, or a privateer-in-chief.

We cannot expect Congressional control of the contracts, or letters of marque, nor meaningful oversight of such a privateer.  There would be no monetary bond to ensure proper conduct.

Today’s privateers seek to be less constrained than the 18th century variety. Those armed merchants risked their ships their own wealth and their lives as privateers.  They served their governments by disrupting enemy commerce in time of war.   

Today’s privateer has turned away from attacks on foreign ships to attacking the ship of state and his fellow countrymen.  The breed has weakened considerably in the past 236 years.  Nowadays privateers risk only other people’s money, well-being and lives.  If we were fortunate enough to escape walking the plank, we would surely be sailing into uncharted and likely very dangerous waters.

Imagine the United States with a President who has spent his career finding businesses with many assets and relatively less cash flow and who has made his fortune acquiring them, selling off their assets, dismissing their employees, pocketing the cash and putting it aside in an offshore account.  What could he do for the country from the Oval Office?

He might want to stop the waste in Washington. One place to start might be at the Smithsonian Institute.  The nation derives no income from it.  It’s filled with collectables that could be sold to the Saudis or others with more cash than they can use.  Across he National Mall, the National Galleries contain countless artworks that could be auctioned off to private museums or to moneyed collectors.  The Washington Monument does nothing, generates no income and could be leased out or sold to private communications businesses. Leased space for microwave repeaters and cell phone transmitters and receivers could surely generate considerable revenue for its now owners.  The National Mall itself should be sold off.  The real estate is priceless and lobbyists could build high-rise towers for the offices and for luxury suites to save them time commuting back and forth to Capitol Hill.

The National Parks offer another opportunity.  They should be set aside for new and productive purposes.  Perhaps they could be used as giant movie lots for the making of survivalist reality shows for television.  Some might be stocked with wild game imported from Africa or Asia, to provide new hunting opportunities for Saudi princes and jaded European nobility who dislike the heat of the African continent.  The government could license private industries to issue hunting permits.  All those unnecessary game wardens and park rangers could be laid off. In addition, the government could save further cost by not regulating any of these new businesses.

The entire military system could be outsourced.  We have historical precedent for such a decision.  We had Colonial privateers on the seas, before America was a nation with a navy.  During the Revolutionary War we benefited from the talents of General Gilbert du Motier (the Marquis de Lafayette), Polish-Lithuanians Colonel Andrzej Tadeusz Bonawentura Kościuszko and General Casimir Pulaski, as well as the Hessians.  

Such a move would not only avoid an unpopular draft, it would save the government untold billions in operational costs.  Assets removed from foreign soil, or new taxes on America’s poor and middle classes could provide funding.  Those unable to pay additional taxes could volunteer for military service to satisfy their indebtedness due to taxes. We have precedent for this too, dating back at least to the arrival of George Soule on the Mayflower.  He paid the debt for his passage to the New World by indenture to fellow Mayflower passenger, Edward Winslow, who later became Governor of Plymouth Colony.

Of course, we’ve already begun the process of outsourcing the military, first to National Guardsman and later to Blackwater USA, which after a series of camouflage name changes is now known as Academi.  Organizations like this cannot only provide contractor military services, but also avoid the additional expense of swearing in officers and troops to uphold the Constitution.  Since the Supreme Court has recently set aside much of that document, the oath is much less needed now than formerly.  If the government pays them enough, they may not seek a higher bidder for their services.

Certainly, additional cost could be avoided and further revenues gained by continued outsourcing of jobs by American businesses.  Finally we may avoid the cost of primaries and general elections, first by severely pruning the ranks of the electorate, and ultimately by outsourcing the vote to corporations.

It seems that a candidate with experience in buying and dismantling businesses would be a natural for the job.

Dr Richard Carmona Blasts the Arizona Birthers

By Michael Bryan

Dr. Richard Carmona published an op/ed on the Capital Times today (outside their paywall) that criticizes the rash of birther news coming from Arizona's conservative politicians.

He writes, in part:

"Many observers have blamed this rash of birther “investigations” in Arizona on career politicians pandering to the extremes. They posit that it must be helping these guys get elected, because why else would they do it?

But here’s the thing: all this birther stuff is doing is turning people off to the political process. It’s not helping anybody."

Carmona always seems to keep his eye firmly on the wider context. Instead of just slamming those affected by Obama Derangement Syndrome, he points out why it's not just illegitimate and stupid, but why it hurts the body politic. It's that sort of diagnostic system thinking that is typical of medical training, and an asset we need much more of in public life.

 

Secretary of State Ken Bennett May Not Be A Birther, But He Is Still An Idiot

By Michael Bryan

I can't even begin to imagine what possible benefit Secretary Bennett thought he might derive from his birther stunt. I suppose he saw Sheriff Joe milking that particular bull and thought, "Heck, I can get some mileage off that, too..."

Well, Ken, I didn't serve with Sheriff Joe. I don't know Sheriff Joe. Sheriff Joe certainly is no friend of mine. But, Ken, even I know, you're no Sheriff Joe.

Nobody expects any better from Sheriff Joe, you see? He already has zero credibility. It's like the idiot child who whips down his pants and shows the neighborhood his ass. Nobody thinks much of it. "That's just Sheriff Joe," they say, and they shrug, shake their heads sadly, and go on with life.

But when somebody who should be respectable and decent whips down their pants and proudly displays their bum for the whole nation to admire, we notice, Ken. The nation notices. The Washington Post calls you a buffoon. People start demanding you investigate equally improbably things: like Mitt Romney is actually a unicorn. They lose respect for you and, worse, for your office. 

And rightly so. Supposedly a grown-up, intelligent, and responsible man does not show the world his bare ass unless there is something deeply wrong with him. Unless his judgment is serious flawed. Unless he really isn't grown-up, or intelligent, or responsible any more.

But you didn't just embarrass yourself, Ken. You embarrassed Arizona and your office. If you had any respect for the people of Arizona and the office you hold, you would resign.

Now, while everyone is momentarily fixated on your ass, Ken. Allow me to teach you, and them, some basics about the American constitution.

Only a 'natural born citizen' can become President of the United States. That is what all this birther nonsense is about. Some folks refuse to believe that Obama was born in Hawaii. 

Fine. So fucking what?

Assume, arguendo, that Obama was born in the British Colony of Kenya (it didn't become an independent nation until 1963, and Obama was born in 1961 - which would technically make him a British subject if born in a British colony) and smuggled into Hawaii, where the doctors, witnesses, Hawaiian officials, and newspapers were all suborned or bribed to cover up this nefarious fact.

So, what is a 'natural born citizen'? Someone who is a citizen from the moment of their birth. It is not, as some would assert, a solely a matter of where you are born.

8 USC §1401 defines who is a citizen at birth. A citizen by birth includes anyone born anywhere in the world to an American parent and a foreign national, provided that the citizen parent resided in the United States for at least five years.

"(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years"

No one would reasonably dispute that Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, was an American citizen, nor that she resided for at least five years in the United States, two of them being after she was 14. Therefore, whereever Obama was born, he is a citizen by birth, and thus 'natural born citizen'.

Case fucking closed. Don't believe Obama was born in Hawaii? I don't fucking care. It doesn't matter. Obama is still a 'natural born citizen' even if he was hatched in Kenya - or on the fucking moon.

So, birthers, I cordially invite you to shut the fuck up and stop wasting everyone's goddamn time.

And Ken, I cordially invite you to resign. Idiot.

A Note to the Green Party on CD 8 Candidate Manolakis

By Michael Bryan

AZGP's political strategy is as good as this movie...

Just a few quick thoughts on Charlie Manolakis, who is running in the CD 8 Special as the Green Party candidate.

I didn't mention Mr. Manolakis in my discussion of the first CD 8 debate. There was a reason for that.

I respect that Mr. Manolakis is clearly a passionate and progressive person, and he is running in an attempt to inject the issue of a single payer universal healthcare system into the debate.

I welcome the participation of smaller party candidates, especially when they bring neglected ideas to the table, and provide some sorely needed plain-speaking and truth-telling to a flawed and overly-narrow discussion.

But in a race that the whole nation is focused on as a bellweather for November, the Green Party does itself, and the public, no favors in selecting a candidate who cannot clearly and persuasively articulate their values and vision for America.

There is much to admire in the Green Party's platform and the 10 key values. I did not hear any of that from Mr. Manolakis. What I heard instead was a droning, inarticulate, repetitive, tedious, and charmless mess.

Can you not field a candidate who, at minimum, can express him- or herself clearly? You have handed to you almost one third of the screen time in one of the most important and closely watched races in the nation, and this is the best spokesman you can find?

No wonder the Green Party is dying in Arizona amid internecine conflicts.

Dr. Richard Carmona: Governor Brewer and Arizona's Legislature Got It Wrong

BlogForArizona Exclusive:

By Dr. Richard Carmona

The Arizona legislature pushed bad health policy throughout its session, and Governor Brewer just compounded those mistakes by signing a bill blocking access to contraception.

This new law doesn't make any sense -- and the harm it will cause the women of our state is startling.

There is absolutely no reason to make it harder for anyone to have access to contraception. We should be focused on expanding access to health care, not slashing it. And for our government to be doing this is unconscionable.

Governor Brewer had expressed concerns about this poorly thought-out health policy pushed by our state legislature. Unfortunately, she seems to have caved to the same partisan pressures that are paralyzing our politics -- signing the bill late on a Friday while few were watching.

This is a symptom of a bigger problem. The career politicians in Arizona and Washington are making decision after decision that benefit only their own personal politics and party. It's shameful.

This week started with Governor Brewer signing a bill banning funds for Planned Parenthood, and it sadly ends with her signing a bill blocking access to contraception. Let this be the low point for how we legislate health care in Arizona.

We deserve better leadership than this and we can get it. We can bring back rationale leadership to our state capitol and to Washington. We can take partisan politics our of health policy.

I called on Governor Brewer to veto this bill. I wish she had.

How To Do The Q in QandA Correctly

By Michael Bryan

As a frequent host and participant in public Q and A sessions, I frequently see egregious examples of how NOT to ask questions in a public forum.

It is frequently painful to go through the open question period after a public discussion. Too few people keep in mind the real goals of such a public exchange, and the results are sometimes boorish, dillatory, and down-right painful, as the speaker sorts through prefatory statements, digressions, and assertions to find an actual question to answer.

I was therefore deeply pleased to find that someone had gone to trouble of discussing how to ask a question correctly:

The best reason to ask a question is to contribute to the quality of the discussion that has already begun. You can do this if you can draw something more and perhaps unexpected out of the speaker you are addressing. “Mr. Rasputin, I admire your tunic. Do you consider fashion to be a revolutionary statement?”

Think of yourself as someone who seeks to enhance the occasion, rather than as an opportunity to show yourself to advantage. “Mr. Darwin, your description of odd wildlife in the Galapagos Islands is fascinating. Do you think evolution works differently on large continents?”

You have not been invited to give a speech. Before you stand up, boil your thoughts down to a single point. Then ask yourself if this point is something you want to assert or something you want to find out. There are exceptions, but if your point falls into the category of assertion, you should probably remain seated. “Mr. Nixon, you are unworthy of being president,” is not a question. “Mr. Nixon, what else would you have done as president if Watergate hadn’t gotten in the way?” is a question.

Question periods are not really the right time to ask for factual details. You are not interviewing the speaker. “Mr. Hillary, what brand of shoes were you wearing when you topped Everest?” is a real question but not one that is likely to enhance the discussion. There are exceptions to this, as when the fact you ask about evokes a larger meaning.  “Mr. Hillary, what do you consider was the most important piece of equipment you carried in your assault on Mt. Everest?”

Likewise, never offer up a roll call of your own facts or belabor them into a Perry Mason pseudo-question. “Mr. Malthus, are you aware that as economic development proceeds, birth rates decline, and that crop yields can be multiplied by a factor of x with the proper use of fertilizers, genetically-enhanced hybrid species, and market-based incentives?”

Weigh the usual interrogatory words in English: who, what, where, why, when. If you can begin your sentence with one of these you are more than half-way to a good question.  “Who gave you that scar, Mr. Potter?”  “What is a black hole, Mr. Hawking?”  “Where is the Celestial City, Mr. Bunyan?”  “Why are you wearing that letter, Ms. Prynne?”  “When will our troops come home, Mr. Lincoln?”

You will discover that, if you think in terms of these simple interrogatories, you will be able to skip right over the prologue. The right question evokes its own context. If, having formulated a question, you still think you need to set the stage for it, try again.

Don’t engage in meta-speech. “I was wondering, Ms. Steinem, if I might ask you a question that I am really curious about.” Go directly to the question. “Ms. Steinem, who is the man you admire the most?”

Look at the person you are addressing. Speak your question directly; don’t read it. Wait for the answer before you sit down. Don’t try to ask a follow-up question. If the speaker evaded your question the first time, he will evade it again. If the audience applauds your question, you are grandstanding and have failed an important test of civility.

The best questions are poised between attentiveness to what the speaker has already said and the chance to deepen the discussion. That means you should not try to introduce a divergent topic. “I appreciate your analysis of the space-shuttle disaster, Mr. Feynman, but are you not morally troubled by your work on the atomic bomb?” attempts to wrench the discussion to a new place. But, “Mr. Feynman, your analysis of the space-shuttle disaster shows the frailty of human judgment. How do you think that bears on other areas of advanced technology?” builds on the theme at hand.

A few people have a gift for witty, memorable questions. You probably aren’t one of them. It doesn’t matter.  A concise, clear question is an important contribution in its own right.

If someone ahead of you asks a similar question or if the speaker gets to your point before you ask, sit down. The audience doesn’t need to hear it twice.

Keep your autobiography to yourself.  This isn’t the occasion for a memoir. There may be exceptions. If you are the Count of Monte Cristo come to settle the score with the man who unjustly sent you to prison for 20 years, then have at it.  The audience will enjoy the show. Otherwise stick with the topic.

But don’t imagine you are there to right the grievances of humanity by shaming one of the oppressors. If you try this, you will annoy people, look like a fool, and most of all cast discredit on your cause. “Mr. Carnegie, aren’t those ‘free’ public libraries you keep building just meant to distract the workers from their exploitation?”

If you are tempted to speak “as” the representative of some category, resist. “As a native of Pittsburgh, I find your characterization of the open hearth Bessemer steel process historically uninformed and offensive,” accomplishes nothing. “Were there any viable alternatives to the Bessemer steel process in the 1860s?” would suffice. Declarations that begin, “As a woman…” “As an African-American…”  “As a Christian…” all carry the same instant discount in the audience. They claim a privileged form of knowledge that no one need grant you. Other people in the same category may have quite different views. Who appointed me to speak for Pittsburgh or you to speak for all womankind?

Lastly, you have a duty to be interesting. Brevity can’t repair a truly dull question. Knowing the difference between powerful concision and powerless vapidity is a matter of discernment, and the same words could be either. “What caused the Civil War?” asked at just the right moment in a debate about civil rights could be a brilliant question, but “What caused the Civil War” in a discussion of the Civil War would probably come across as tedious. If you aren’t sure which it is, silence is your best friend.

All of this is excellent advice. The one exception I take is the injunction against follow-up questions. If you haven't any particular skill in cross-examiniation, then I agree, don't bother. But if you have some skill at forensics, a follow-up can be illuminating.

Following this excellent advice goes a long way to improving the tone and informational content of many public forums.

Speaker Tobin - what kind of cheese would you like with that whine?

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

 

Nearly every Sunday morning at 8 a.m., Channel 12 in Phoenix airs Sunday Square Off, a weekly political discussion show. When discussing issues and matters where there is a partisan divide, host Brahm Resnick will bring in a lineup of guests that crosses that partisan divide; when discussing issues and matters that are less partisan and more observational, a panel of journalists and Capitol observers are brought in.

This week's episode was primarily focused on the wrap-up of the legislative session, so the panel was less political and more neutral.

The neutral panel was critical/skeptical of a few things - the lack of transparency surrounding the budget, the no notice passage of a huge tax cut for the wealthy, the move to remove oversight of private prisons - but overall, they were pretty gentle with the lege and its shenanigans, but that wasn't good enough for Andy Tobin, speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives.

When Resnick linked to the video archive of the episode on his Facebook page, Tobin chimed in -

 

This was a follow-up to a post that Tobin put up on his own FB page where he complained about the Arizona Republic declined to publish an "op-ed" that he wrote.

He might have left it at that, taking advantage of the benefit of the doubt to maintain at least a vestige of credibility.

Of course, he didn't. He posted his "op-ed" and removed all doubt.

His piece was less "op-ed" suitable for a newspaper and more "hit piece" suitable for a mailer. Apparently, Tobin was interested in saving some postage and is upset that the Republic isn't giving him an in-kind contribution for his Congressional/legislative campaign.

Not quite sure which he is going for, at least based on the hit piece op-ed, but he spent the entire piece blaming Arizona Democrats, President Obama, national Democrats, and the federal government for all that ails AZ, while blithely ignoring the fact that he and his Republican associates have controlled the Arizona Capitol for generations, and even had a supermajority in both chambers for the last two sessions. They were able to push through absolutely anything they wanted in Arizona. In addition, he ignored the fact that his associates have controlled the US House of Representatives for the last two years, and have done everything to attempt to block an effective economic recovery.

Note: I saved a copy of his hit piece in the event he pulls it down, but I don't expect him to do that. He's too proud of his contempt for reality to ever do something like that.

ALEC continuing to lose support, even in AZ

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

 

Turns out that pushing legislation that racks up a body count isn't considered good PR by many of ALEC's corporate supporters...

Late last week, Russell Smoldon, lobbyist for SRP and one of ALEC's lead fixers in AZ and Debbie Lesko, AZ state representative AZ chair for ALEC, organized an emergency meeting of roughly 140 Arizona lobbyists to try to coordinate a response to the nationwide outcry over the ALEC-written and pushed Kill At Will "Stand Your Ground" law used to rationalize the killing of Trayvon Martin in Florida, a law that is on the books in many states, including Arizona.

The email invite was pretty bland (courtesy a friend of the blog) -

Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 9:37 AM

Subject: meeting regarding ALEC

Debbie Lesko and other ALEC legislative members both present and past would like to invite you to a meeting thisThurs. (April 26th), 11:00am at AGC to get the latest update on the fight that ALEC is waging in the media against its detractors. We would really appreciate your attendance

Russell D. Smoldon

Senior Director Government Relations

SRP

The problem? According to sources, nowhere near all of the lobbyists asked to attend showed up, but a news crew from Channel 5 and Stephen Lemons, a reporter from the Phoenix New Times, did show up. Apparently, Lesko got wind of the media attention before arriving, so she skipped the meeting. The unlucky ones who didn't get the heads-up were left to try to duck the spotlight.

The Arizona Capitol Times had some coverage of the meeting in Friday's Yellow Sheet Report (pricey subscription required). From that report -

ENJOYING THE FIRST AMENDMENT, NOW GO AWAY

Supporters and members of ALEC, which has come under a publicity blitz by opponents, today found themselves hiding from members of the press who received word about an ALEC-related meeting held at the Associated General Contractors’ office. Sources say that about 30 to 40 representatives of ALEC’s Arizona corporate sponsors met at the AGC to discuss the publicity campaign that has put the group on its heels and under public scrutiny over the close ties between elected officials and corporate entities.

The purpose of the meeting may have been to organize a response to the withering criticism that ALEC is facing, or it may have been called simply to "buck up the troops" as a number of ALEC's corporate sponsors have been distancing themselves from ALEC.

It doesn't matter which, because having to duck, or duck and run out of, the meeting doesn't help with either goal.

Later....

Why Not Recall the War on Women in Arizona?

By Michael Bryan

With Arizona having become a primary front in the GOP's War on Women, it seems to me there is a possible means to make the GOP pay at the polls this November for their aggression against the rights and health of half the population.

The GOP supermajority in the AZ legislature has passed several anti-women laws that do not reflect the values and opinions of the majority of Arizonans, especially those of Arizona's women. Among them are the widely-reported and controversial new restriction on abortions after 20 weeks, the defunding of Planned Parenthood in Arizona, and the ability for employers to opt out of funding birth control for their female employees if they have a "moral objection" to use of contraceptives. Not all these bills have been signed into law by Governor Breweras as of this writing, but unless they get imesheshed in the Governor's childish veto tantrum over the budget, they almost certainly will be.

This presents Democrats, and any voters who do not want the government's fingers in every woman's vagina, an opportunity to turn the tables and make the GOP radicals pay at the polls.

Here in Arizona, as in many states created in the Progressive era, the voters have preserved to themselves the right of recall and referedum. Most people are familiar with the recall as a tool for removing an office-holder who has behaved poorly in office, such as former Senate President Russell Pearce. But the Arizona Constitution also allows specific legislative enactments to be referred to the ballot for approval or rejection by voters, essentially allowing voters to recall a law they don't like.

One normally sees Initiatives referred to the ballot by citizens groups (or by special interests) by petition, or by the legislature itself (generally for amendments to the Constitution), but if enough voters don't like a law that has been passed by the legislature and signed into law by the Governor, a petition can be circulated to refer it to the ballot, as well. Even better, whereas Initiaitve petitions require 10% of voters to sign, a referendum of a legislative enactment only requires 5% to sign.

These provisions make it relatively easy for citizens to place the aforementioned anti-woman laws on the ballot this November. It would require some organization, some (wo)man-power, and some money, to circulate the petitions and to clarify the issues for voters, but it could be easily be done by the Democratic party and groups dedicated to women's health and reproductive rights.

Why would we want to do this? Because the GOP has screwed itself with America's women this election cycle. Women are breaking for Democrats in record numbers. Even many conservative women are offended and angry about the bombardment of anti-woman legislation coming out of GOP controlled state legislatures and the GOP caucus in Congress. Polling confirms that the GOP has stepped out on a limb and handed us a saw: it's incumbent upon us to oblige them.

By placing these extremist laws on the ballot for referendum, we will drive record numbers of women to the polls to spit in the GOP's eye. The GOP has proven quite adept at using ballot initiatives and legislative referenda to energize their base and drive them to the polls. Now we can return the favor.

You might ask, "Doesn't this idea risk a backlash by driving ultra-conservatives to the polls to support these radical anti-woman laws?" You bet it does. But we who respect women, not to mention women themselves, far outnumber them. Such a referendum will surely inspire both opponents and supporters to have their votes counted on these laws - but who will speak louder? I have no doubt who would prevail.

Such a shellacking at the polls would prove convincingly that there is no political advantage to radical conservatives forcing their views on society through anti-woman legislation. It would demonstrate that they will always lose in the court of wider public opinion, and pay a heavy price at the polls - thereby acting as a deterent to conservatives giving their anti-woman constituents jollies with discriminatory legislation in the future.

This fall, we can give the GOP a shellacking with a brush they fashioned themselves. We can increase the odds of victory in Arizona for Obama and Carmona. We can give Democratic candidates a leg up all the way down the ticket. But we must act decisively and soon.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this idea. Please distribute this posting widely among your social circles. This idea deserves some wider debate and consideration.

Whining, Posturing, And Wild-eyed Scheming: It's Silly Season At The Lege

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

 

The time for real work at the lege has passed. All of the Democrats and most of the rank-and-file Republicans in the lege are spending their days (metaphorically) twiddling their thumbs. On Thursday, the Senate didn't even have a floor calendar. They met, prayed (Steve Yarbrough prayed that people be obedient to their rulers...hmmm...), pledged allegiance to the flag, and did a few short speeches (Sylvia Allen railed about the border with Mexico, claiming that it is controlled by drug cartels), announcements, and ceremonies. And that was it.

They're waiting for the Republican leadership in the lege and the governor to negotiate a budget.

According to the Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) and the Arizona Republic (no subscription required, and usually worth every penny), after a couple of weeks of threats to veto everything the lege passes until a budget deal is done (the governor, of course) and some huffy responses (the Rs in the lege saying that they'd work with the Democrats in the lege instead - like they would ever mean that; most of them don't even say "good morning" in the halls to the Democrats when passing each other), they're close to a deal.

Which is a good thing, in a way.

The governor and her Republican associates in the legislature are sure to craft a budget that is bad for Arizona's families and Arizona's future, no matter when they come up with one.

However, the longer that they're in session, the more damage that they can do to the state while helping themselves (check out KPHO's story, that ran Thursday night, on self-serving bills pushed by legislators, who are supposed to place the needs of the public before their own individual greed) or just seeing who can come up with the craziest s*** before sine die (leading right now: Steve Montenegro's scheme to get the Republicans in the lege to appropriate more than a quarter of a million dollars to give to former legislator Russell Pearce to pay for the money he spent fighting [unsuccessfully! :) ] his recall...even though none of the money spent was from his personal funds).

In short, the state will be better off if the lege passes a horrible budget now than if they pass a horrible budget after a few more weeks of legislative malfeasance and malpractice.

As if they knew my point in the above sentence and wanted to help support my position, the House has already posted its Third Read Calendar (final approval).

Four bills, three tea-publican "dog-whistle" bills -

- SB1231, appropriating $$$ so Tom Horne can sue the US Forest Service to force the USFS to allow more "forest thinning" activities (in other words, allowing logging of federal forests...actually, this one may be less "dog-whistle" than self-serving, but more on that in a few days)

- SB1275, stealthily imposing stealth TABOR limits on AZ (didja see that? I got to use "stealth" twice in one sentence

- SB1507, barring any political entity in Arizona from enacting any "sustainability" measures

And if that isn't enough evidence, they've also posted Monday's COW (Committee of the Whole) Calendar.

One bill, and one bill only.

- SB1083, creating and funding the Republicans' anti-Mexican (and Mexican ancestry) vigilante force Arizona Special Missions Unit


The consensus of the Capitol press corps (at least, as represented by Mary Jo Pitzl [AZ Republic], Dennis Welch {AZ Guardian], and Jim Small [AZ Capitol Times] on Friday's edition of Horizon on KAET) is that while there is a real chance that something could happen over the weekend to derail the budget deal, it is more likely to pass than not, and the lege should adjourn the session by the 2nd week of May.

Personally, and this is mostly a guess, I think if the deal goes of without any significant hitches early in the coming week, they'll (the lege) will be out of town by Thursday.

I hope.

The coming week...

Posted by Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

 

As usual, all schedules, calendars, and agendas are subject to change without notice...and since it hit 100 degrees in Phoenix this weekend, the non-Maricopa legislators will be pushing hard to get out of town soon, both to avoid the heat and to get busy with campaigning.

The Republican leadership of the lege and the governor are squabbling over negotiating the budget behind closed doors (no Democrats or even rank-and-file Republicans invited) and no one is really sure when a budget will get done and the lege can adjourn sine die.

Right now, everybody who isn't privy to the negotiations is left to guess about when a budget is going to come down, and even those guesses have "weasel words" attached to them (i.e. - words like "maybe" "possibly", "could be", etc.).

I've heard people predict that it may come down this week, but others say "snowball's chance in Phoenix" to that. I do believe that it will be done by the end of the month, if only because the legislators that reside in cooler climes would rather be in a place where they won't lose the "which is greater? The IQ of the legislator for your area, or the daily high temp in your area?" pool.

This week is shaping up to be a "hurry up and wait" one

There are a few things already posted however -

House Rules will meet Monday at 1 p.m. in HHR4. The agenda includes SB1231, appropriating $250K so the Attorney General can sue the US Forest Service and SB1275, another attempt to stealthily impose TABOR on Arizona.

Senate Finance will meet Monday at 1 p.m. in SHR1. One item on the agenda: HB2264, returning the state contribution rate to its employee pension fund to 50% from the 47% to which it was reduced under the guise of "fiscal necessity" (it was more an attack on state workers, but that can be covered in another post). The change was the subject of a lawsuit that the state and state legislature were expected to lose (darn contract law and the Arizona Constitution! :) ).

The House's Third Read Calendar for Monday is here. Includes SB1332, "demanding" that the federal government cede all federal lands in Arizona to the state of Arizona. And yes, the bill uses the word "demand". Monday's House COW (Committee of the Whole) Calendar is here.

The Senate's Caucus Calendar for Monday is here. These are bills that may be going before the Rules Committee and then on to a floor calendar in the near future.

Anybody who plans to travel to the Capitol this week to observe a floor session should remember to call ahead to ask about the schedule for the day of their planned visit. At this point of the session, after Monday most floor sessions are held in the morning. On Mondays, the floor sessions still tend to be held in the afternoon to allow out-of-county legislators time to travel to the Capitol from their homes.

The lege's Capitol Events calendar for the week is here.

The Arizona Department of Administration's Public Meeting Notice Kiosk (web page) is here.

The Arizona Capitol Times' Capitol Calendar is here.

The coming week...

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

 

As usual, all agendas and calendars subject to change without notice...

The legislature has reached the point in the session where the only real work left is the budget. Most of that work is going on behind closed doors in negotiations between the governor and the leadership of the legislature (public input apparently not necessary or even welcome).

I've heard a prediction that the lege will try to wrap up this week, and while it was only a prediction, it's been echoed by the Center for Arizona Theocracy Policy in their weekly press release posted at Sonoran Alliance, and CATP is a lot better wired into the goings-on at the Capitol than my source, who is only an elected official.

However, so long as the lege is in session, their potential for mischief is unlimited.

This week, the Senate Judiciary Committee as meeting on Monday (1 p.m., SHR1) to consider a couple of bills and some executive branch nominations. The bills, HB2486 and HB2544, look to be relatively harmless (though HB2544 is a big business-supported "tort reform" bill that would make it easier for a court to award attorney fees in "baseless" lawsuits or similar court proceedings, and "big business-supported 'tort reform' " usually means that average people are getting screwed).

The executive nominations are more fun.

One of the nominees is Jesse J. Hernandez, nominated to a paid position on the Executive Clemency Board.

Hernandez is a staffer for Congressman David Schweikert, campaign co-chair for Bill Montgomery and a former candidate for the lege, but as far as I can see, there isn't a legal issue blocking a Congressional staffer from accepting outside employment (note: I've got calls out to a couple of people who have more knowledge in this area than I do to check on this, but it being the weekend and they having these mysterious things called "lives", they haven't gotten back to me yet. How rude. :) ).

However, he was the chair of Russell Pearce's campaign committee during last year's recall election.

When was the last time anybody heard of Pearce or his crowd being interested in "clemency" for anyone?

Also on the agenda:

The nomination of Brian McNeil to the Commission on Trial Court Appointments for Maricopa County. McNeil is a former staffer for Governor Jan Brewer and shadow governor Chuck Coughlin (he's worked for both)

Other matters on the early schedule for the lege this week:

House Rules is meeting Monday at 1 p.m. in HHR4. That agenda is short, with but one bill on it. SB1433 is a measure that would allow a county sheriff to assume control of a municipality's police department under specified circumstances. It's targeted at the police department in Colorado City/Hilldale, an area under the control of a cult that claims to be fundamentalist Mormons.

There is also a note on the agenda indicating that someone is asking for permission to introduce some sort of a resolution. Don't know the "who" as yet, nor the nature of the resolution.

Monday's floor calendars include Senate COW (Committee Of the Whole) with a couple of TeaPublican "dog whistle" measures; House COW, with another couple of dog-whistle bills; House Third Read (final approval), including SB1365, granting immunity from adminstrative, civil, or criminal penalties to individuals and organizations that breach a contract or fail to provide a service if the individuals or organizations cite a religious reason for the breach; and House Final Read 1 and Final Read 2 (re-approval of measures that were amended by the Senate after House gave its final approval).

No conference committee schedules have been posted as yet.

The Arizona Capitol Times' Capitol Calendar is here; no events are listed on the lege's calendar of events for the week.

The coming week...

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

 

As usual, all agendas and calendars are subject to change without notice.

And given that the lege is expected to end its session within the next few weeks, things could start getting crazy down there...well, crazier than usual, anyway. :)

...On the House side of the Capitol -

No House committee agendas have been posted as yet, but the agenda for a House Rules committee from Thursday, March 29 should serve as a good preview of floor activity this week.

That agenda included gems such as SB1083, creating the Arizona Special Missions Unit, a state government sanctioned anti-immigrant vigilante force and SB1104, appropriating nearly $300K to the Republicans' Joint Border Security Advisory Committee.

Monday's Third Read Calendar (final approval) includes SB1311, which would raise the limit on small claims court actions heard by justice courts from $10K to $15K (has constitutional issues); and SB1259, reconsideration of a measure from Sen. Rich Crandall (that failed Thursday with bipartisan support and opposition) that would mandate that public schools allow students to enroll in online courses, with the subsequent redirection of public school funding to the providers, presumably private, of the online courses (Crandall has ties to, and isn't above using his elected office to promote, a private company in the online education business).

Other bills that could be seen on the House floor this week (and this isn't meant to be a comprehensive list): SB1449, weakening the state's recall election law; SB1507, barring the state, its agencies, and any counties, municipalities, or other political subdivisions from doing anything to implement the UN's Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (appears to be an ALEC/Koch Brothers special); and SB1359, immunizing doctors from civil liability related any failure to inform patients of a fetus' genetic defects or other medical issues (it's meant to allow doctors to misinform patients if their purpose is too prevent people from choosing an abortion).


On the Senate side of the Capitol -

- Rules is scheduled to meet Monday at 1 p.m. in Caucus Room 1.

The following committees are meeting to consider executive nominations:

- Judiciary, Monday, 2 p.m., SHR1 (one to watch - the appointments under consideration are for county trial court appointment boards and the state commission on judicial conduct; in other words, this one is all about the future of the state's judiciary)
- Veterans, Military, and Government Affairs, Tuesday, upon adjournment of the meeting of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC), SHR3
- Government Reform, Tuesday, 1 p.m., SHR1
- Commerce and Energy, Wednesday, 9 a.m., SHR109
- Water, Land Use, and Rural Development, Wednesday, 2 p.m., SHR3
- Finance, Thursday, 9 a.m., SHR109
- Natural Resources and Transportation, Thursday, 9:30 a.m., SHR109


Monday's Third Read calendar includes HB2557, Sen. Frank Antenori's attack on municipal use of photo radar to enforce traffic laws (basically, he's sick of getting tickets); Committee of the Whole (COW) includes HB2071, an anti-protester bill that would make passive resistance of (aka failure to actively cooperate with) an arrest a class 1 misdemeanor; HB2503, increasing protections for corporations from product liability lawsuits; HB2826, mandating that all elections in AZ, with the exception of certain special elections, be held in even numbered years on an August/November schedule.

Not on Monday's calendar as of this writing, but almost certain to make an appearance this week, is HB2625, Debbie Lesko's anti-contraception bull bill. It was defeated last week, but Sen. Nancy Barto moved to reconsider, or bring back, the measure, and that motion passed.

The lege's calendar of events at the Capitol this week is here; the Arizona Capitol Times' Capitol Calendar is here.

A Biblical Response to Homophobic Christians in Arizona

By Michael Bryan

I have heard anti-gay sentiments too often from GOP candidates for office in Arizona. Frank Antenori has been one of the most vocal and blunt here in southern Arizona, but he is certainly not alone. I find it all distasteful, offensive, and scripturally indefensable.

Frank's recent comments about the Left loving to tear families apart in connection with his support for traditional marriage against same-sex marriages, and his blunt statements against repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of the armed forces, lead me to conclude that, at the very least, Frank has a problem with gays getting equal treatment under our laws.

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu's candidacy for Congress was certainly, and rightly, sunk by the scandals in which he has immured himself. But one wonders, would he have been able to weather those storms with GOP primary voters were his lover a young Latina woman? I believe that Babeu's downfall was not his indiscretion, poor judgment, and potential abuses of power - after all, these seem to be par for the course among GOP politicians in Arizona - but his sexual orientation.

Too many GOP politicians find they can get support and donations by appealing to Christians' discomfort with gays. What is the basis of that ingrained bigotry against gays by Christians?

Turns out it's just six passages in scripture - out of some 31,000 passages. How strong is the Biblical basis for anti-gay prejudice? Not very.

Take a listen to Matthew Vines, an impressively articulate and thoughtful Christian gay man, who would like to challenge your settled notions of what the scriptures actually say about homosexuality.

Matthew's scholarship is impressive. It boils down to this:

"The Bible never directly addresses, and it certainly does not condemn, loving, committed same-sex relationships. There is no biblical teaching about sexual orientation, nor is there any call to lifelong celibacy for gay people. But the Bible does explicitly reject forced loneliness as God’s will for human beings, not just in the Old Testament, when God says that “[i]t is not good for the man to be alone,” but in the New Testament as well."

There is no sound foundation for condemnation of the sexual orientation and loving relationships of homosexuals in the Bible. Homophobia's popularity among Christians is merely the last terrible bigotry that remains acceptable in our culture, because many claim the Bible condones it. It does not.

The bitter truth is that bigots will find a reason to indulge their hatred, not because God commands it, but because deep in their hearts, they enjoy it. Their hatred is a reflection of the fallen nature of man. They know hatred and bigotry are not reflections of the godly nature granted humans by their Creator, but rather than be ashamed and purge their hatred through compassion and understanding and the inspiring life of Jesus, they seek to justify their hatred by claiming God shares it.

God hates none of his creation; certainly not the many men and women he created in his image whose hearts and souls, and libidos, respond only to persons of the same sex.

The capacity to love one another, to cleave together, to create loving families, is the godly nature of mankind. To condemn this capacity in some, because God gave them a loving nature different than the majority is not Christian: it is monstrous.

Matthew points out that Jesus taught that we shall know a true teacher by his fruits. The shame, self-destruction, suffering of young gay men and women are the bitter fruits of a misguided teaching. Spit it out.

Watch Matthew present his argument after the flip. If you can still bring yourself to claim God's consent to your hatred of gays, you haven't a heart to appeal to...

The coming week...

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

 

As usual, all committee agendas and floor calendars are subject to change without notice...

At the Arizona legislature, the coming week will look a lot like the past week, except less so. :)

It also going to be a "keep your eyes open" kind of week, as many things will happen/bills will move on short notice.


On the House side -

Appropriations is scheduled to meet on Monday at 2 p.m. in HHR1 to complete a recessed meeting. They've already gone through much of the agenda.

As of right now, this is the only non-Rules Committee meeting scheduled for the week, on either side of the Capitol, but that is sure to change. Look for Appropriations meetings on Tuesday (Senate) and Wednesday (House)

Speaking of Rules, House Rules is scheduled to meet Monday in HHR4 at 1 p.m; Senate Rules is scheduled to meet Monday in Senate Caucus Room 1 upon the adjournment of the floor session. While Monday is the usual day for Rules committee meetings, but they aren't limited to Mondays. Last week, there was a meeting of House Rules on Thursday, so expect more Rules meetings as they try to move as many bills as possible toward floor consideration.

Monday's House Third Read (final approval) Calendar is posted here; the most controversial bill is SB1197. As originally written, it would have mandated changes to overtime rules for law enforcement officers, who currently receive OT for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a given work week. The original bill would have changed the OT threshold from >40 in one week to >80 hours in a 2-week period. It's been changed with a House floor amendment, but I'm not sure of the real impact of the amendment to the new bill.

Monday's House Committee of the Whole (COW) session is here. COW is where they accept committee amendments to a bill (usually a rubber stamp) and consider any floor amendments to a bill (usually reject amendments proposed by Democrats and accept amendments from Republicans).

Monday's Senate Third Read Calendar is here. Some of the more controversial bills: HB2103 (attacking public sector employees and public sector employee unions); HB2626, expanding Steve Yarbrough's profits the school voucher program that runs funds through school tuition organizations (STOs) like Yarbrough's; HB2807, making the voter-enacted Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) subject to the provisions of the state's open meeting law. May run into legal issues because the AIRC is part of constitutional language, not statutory language. May run into hypocrisy issues because the lege has exempted itself from the same open meeting law.

Monday's Senate COW Calendar is here.


All House committee agendas can be found here; Senate committee agendas here.

Floor calendars can be found here.

The lege's Capitol Events calendar is here; the Arizona Capitol Times' Capitol Calendar is here.

Antenori's Amateurish Election Pitch Spreadsheet

By Michael Bryan

An interesting little info-graphic from Frank Antenori's CD8/2 campaign:

What pops out for me is the absolutey amateurish way this was put together.

It's clearly just a spreadsheet. And just as clearly the person who threw it together has no concept of style or design, or even basic typographical competence.

The font sizes are oddly mismatched - just look at Antenori's name! The capitalization is haphazard. The spacing, bolding, and cell fill all seem practically random.

This is a communication from a person who wants to be a Member of Congress? It looks like it was hammered out by a college kid coming off a bender with an assignment due in a hour.

Now, let's consider the substance.

The main comparison seems to be with Kelly; Sitton and McSally seem to be on the table mainly as an afterthought, and the cell fill colors on Antenori's and Kelly's columns seem to reinforce that. Weirdly, as to community ties and education, Sitton and McSally make Antenori look light.

The main raps on Kelly seem to be his loss to Giffords in 2010, his rather flexible connections to the district, and - of all the things for a Republican to focus on while Santorum is waging a War on the Educated - the assertion that Kelly is a college drop-out.

Frank also seems to be claiming a superior ability to attract independent voters based on his election in LD30. This is a bit misleading as Frank compares apples and oranges. In CD8, he cites an 8% GOP advantage for Kelly, which is true, but in comparison to Dems ONLY. In LD30, he claims that he only had a 41% GOP registration, which is true, but is misleading since that percentage is of ALL voters. Only comparing Dems to GOP voters in LD30, the GOP had a whopping 40% registration advantage. Hardly a challenging electoral environment for a Republican.

Plus, Frank only beat his Democratic opponent in 2008 by a mere 6% despite that massive advantage in registration. Though, admittedly he did better in the sweep of 2010, whomping his Dem opponent 60/40. So, is Frank a draw for indpendents? Not so much. I'm surprised to see him even making the argument that he has better appeal outside the party: neither he nor Kelly are really the sort to care about their independent appeal. Both these guys are all about feeding the red meat to the base, not making the GOP tent bigger.

Over all, however, Antenori makes a powerful argument that he is a more experienced, committed, and viable candidate than Kelly. If he had made the pitch without such an amateurish presentation, it might even have been compelling.

Come on, Frank. You need to execute better than this to kick Kelly's smarmy punk ass in this primary. Nut up and pay for some actual talent next time instead of letting some volunteer knock something together on his laptop.

Arizona graded as below average in the area of legislative integrity? Color me as not shocked.

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

 

From a story in the Arizona Daily Star, written by Wayne Parry of the AP -

State governments lack transparency and accountability to citizens, and remain at high risk for corruption, according to a new study of all 50 statehouses.

 

 

Not a single state received an A in the State Integrity Investigation ranking, a product of the Center for Public Integrity, Public Radio International and Global Integrity.

 

 

Arizona received a D-plus.

The actual study is available here, but the upshot is that grades were issued in a number of sub-areas, and combined into an overall grade, and that the areas with the highest grades were those that have the least legislative influence. The report card -

Yes, you read that report card correctly. The only "A" grade is in an area that the lege has no real control over, redistricting, an area that the voters kicked the lege out of more than a decade ago when it created the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).

And the lege has been trying to usurp the AIRC and the will of the voters ever since.

...In a bit of (apparently) fortuitous timing, at the same time this report on legislative integrity is making the rounds, so is the story of how Sen. Frank "Don't Make Me Mad" Antenori had his driver's license suspended by a Pima County justice court but MVD (Motor Vehicle Division) claims that it never was notified and therefore hasn't actually suspended Antenori's license.

Not saying there is anything untoward going on here, but MVD's HQ is a short golf shot away from the Senate building, and there have been occasions in the past when political influence swayed the way that MVD did its job...

The coming week...

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

 

As usual, all committee agenda and schedules subject to change without notice...

I'm guessing that the stores in the area of the state capitol have experienced a run on lip balm due to an epidemic of chapped lips centered on 1700 West Washington.

The session of the legislature has reached the point where the only committee that can hear bills are the respective chambers' Appropriation committees, when means that every Republican legislator (Democrats need not apply) with a proposal that he or she would like to keep alive is kissing up to the chairs of the Appropriations committees, Rep. John Kavanagh and Sen. Don Shooter.

Hence the epidemic of chapped lips, and the run on lip balm. :)

This is the week when the appropriations committees begin to earn their pay. No, they aren't considering budget bills (and they don't even "work" on those, unless you think that rubberstamping whatever the Republican leadership of the lege puts in front of them to be "work") but the approps agendas this week are as long as that of all committee agendas combined during a normal week. This week's committee meetings will take hours.


Items of interest on the agenda for Wednesday's meeting of House Appropriations (HHR1, 2 p.m.):

- A striker to SB1153 with the subject of "rental cars; liability insurance; subrogation". No text available as yet, but Arizona's Republican legislators don't pull out all the stops for good governance measures.

- SB1231, giving a quarter million dollars to Tom Horne so that he can sue the US Forest Service (USFS) over forest thinning on USFS lands (the Rs want more logging of public lands for private profit)

- SB1333, creating a council empowered to mount legal challenges to any federal law or policy that it doesn't like, and authorizing appropriations for such purposes

- SB1495, mandating drug testing for applicants for and recipients of unemployment insurance payments. In a particularly vicious clause, it further mandates that the applicants/recipients pay for the drug tests. You know, the people who have no jobs and no income to use to pay for the drug tests.

- A striker to SCR1030 with the subject of "photo enforcement; speeding; prohibition". No text available as yet, but I don't think that they are proposing a measure to prohibit speeding.


Items of interest on the agenda of Tuesday's meeting of Senate Appropriations (SHR109, 10 a.m.):

- A striker to HCR2056, a proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution to "simplify" language regarding the state land fund.

- A striker to HB2127, regarding tax incentives for motion picture productions in Arizona

- A striker to HB2388, regarding the pharmacy board and rules regarding controlled substances

- A striker to HB2486, subject "minors; reporting duty; deceased; missing", no text available as yet

- A striker to HB2557, affecting the definition of "intersection" on Arizona's roads. Looks like a resurrection of Sen. Frank Antenori's SB1313, which was defeated in a House committee on Thursday. Antenori, ever accustomed to getting his way, expressed his displeasure at the defeat. Energetically.

- A striker to HB2493, creating another tax credit for big business (paired with SB1495 above, this two-step perfectly illustrates the Rs contempt for the average Arizonan and their adoration of the 1%)

- HB2571, turning the state's merit employment system into a spoils system benefitting Jan Brewer and her allies in the legislature...

- HB2815, creating a business tax credit for expenses incurred due to a government regulation, and docking the regulating entity for the amount of the credit

- A striker to HB2848, attacking public unions, including taking away the right to strike

- A striker to HB2410, expanding an already-existing business tax credit


The agendas of the Rules committees of each chamber serve as a good preview of upcoming floor activity - House Rules' agenda is here; Senate Rules' is here.

Speaking of floor action, on Monday, the Senate will consider HB2035 (undermining "clarifying" the voter-enacted (and voter protected) Medical Marijuana Act (this one needs a 3/4 vote to pass under the provisions of the Voter Protection Act, and it didn't receive that in the House, so I think this one will still have to go back to the House for a revote if it passes the Senate), HB2386 (an ALEC bill, lessening corporate liability on asbestos-related claims), and HB2640 (allowing "hunters" to use ammunition magazines of unlimited size), among others.

A couple of other Senate committees are scheduled to meet to consider executive branch nominations. The most notable of those, at least for regular readers, is the nomination of former State Senator Carolyn Allen (R-Scottsdale) to the Biomedical Research Commission. Her nomination will be heard on Wednesday by Healthcare and Medical Liability Reform.

All floor calendars can be found here.
All Senate committee agenda are here; House committee agendas are here.
The lege's Capitol Events calendar is here; the Arizona Capitol Times' Capitol Calendar is here.

Want to Repeal 'ObamaCare'? Explain That to Her...

Posted by Michael Bryan

Seems like every Republican is rabid to repeal the Affordable Care Act, called derisively (but ironically sealing Obama's brand on what will be seen as a great, though flawed, legislative achievement) 'ObamaCare'.

Well, some of the things the Act does simply and directly save lives and protect Americans from abusive insurance practices. One is to abolish lifetime benefit caps. "So what?" you ask? Glad you did.

Watch how that made a difference in the life of one young Arizonan after the click...

Legislative Republicans, like scorpions, are what they are...

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

 

...and expecting them to be any different is a waste of time and a waste of energy...

Among the things that the Rs in the Arizona lege have done just this week...

...Passed out of committee HB2664, a bill to allow debt collection agencies to scam consumers and courts in their quests to collect debts that the consumers may or may not actually owe...

...Passed out of the House and sent to the Senate HB2625, which would allow employers to question and even fire any female employees who use contraceptives...

...Passed out of the House and sent to the Senate HB2571, which seeks to turn Arizona's state government employment system into a patronage system where the winner of an election could fire any or all employees and install their sycophants/campaign contributors into government jobs...

...Gave House committee approval to SB1083, creating a state-sponsored vigilante force to hunt immigrants, legally answerable only to the governor...

...Gave Senate committee approval to the amended HB2480, turning it into yet another "birther" bill...

...Killed SB1462, an anti-bullying bill, because certain elected and unelected would-be theocrats are worried that it might impede their ability to "educate" students who are gay, have brown skin, come from poor families, are girls, or are otherwise part of a to-be-demonized group...


It goes on and on. The Republicans in the lege spend their days attacking women, poor people, civil servants, the president, consumers, minorities and more. What they don't do is something that nearly everyone can agree on - work on improving Arizona's economy (the Senate committee created for just such a purpose, Economic Development and Jobs Creation, has met once this session. It considered two bills.

One was a tax credit for big business, one weakens product liability law, making life a little more difficult for people injured by faulty products.

That's it.

Simply put, they've spent months engaged in ideologically-based attacks on groups that they don't like, but they haven't done anything that even has a faint whiff of public service.

The economy here is still tottering, and the recovery (such as it is) is weaker than in the rest of the country, yet the Rs in the lege are focused on inflicting damage to others, not in shoring up Arizona's weaknesses.

Given that this is an election year, most politicians, in other states anyway, are at least pretending to care about the status of their constituents, why aren't the Rs here putting up a better front of concern for the people of Arizona?

I think I've found a little insight...

From Snopes.com (there are countless variations on this parable, but they all make the same point) -

A scorpion, being a very poor swimmer, asked a turtle to carry him on his back across a river. "Are you mad?" exclaimed the turtle. "You'll sting me while I'm swimming and I'll drown."

 

"My dear turtle," laughed the scorpion, "if I were to sting you, you would drown and I would go down with you. Now where is the logic in that?"

 

"You're right!" cried the turtle. "Hop on!" The scorpion climbed aboard and halfway across the river gave the turtle a might sting. As they both sank to the bottom, the turtle resignedly said:

 

"Do you mind if I ask you something? You said there'd be no logic in your stinging me. Why'd you do it?"

 

"It has nothing to do with logic," the drowning scorpion sadly replied. "It's just my character."

These people have enthusiastically embraced the role of society's scorpions. Whenever they see a situation that affects average Arizonans they work to make it worse, at least for average Arizonans. If they can be said to have character at all, innate viciousness is a major portion of it.

And while they certainly bear responsibility for their actions in office, we bear responsibility for letting them gain access to positions of public trust where they are able to inflict damage on society and the members of society that they don't like.

It is easy to be outraged at the depredations of the majority in the lege (and the executive branch Rs, as well as the Rs in DC, but we are talking about the lege here...), but the best response is to take the energy of that outrage and turn it into support for candidates that actually respect public service and public servants.

That means more than just supporting them with votes (though voting is important :)) ), it means supporting them with effort and money (start with the Arizona Democratic Party volunteer/donate or the Maricopa County Democratic Party volunteer/donate)

While I believe that means supporting Democratic candidates (partisan hack that I am :) ), I understand that some people won't be able to do that.

For them, I suggest supporting Republicans who have the ability and desire to be decent public servants.

Yes, there are a few. Unfortunately, in the current toxic political climate they have no chance of getting through a primary.

Either way, it's time for the voters to stop voting against their own best interests and the best interests of society, step up, and rein in the worst of the legislators.