This won’t be a routine state party meeting this Saturday in Tucson.
We will be considering the following resolution, which is derived after negotiations with the state party to get it onto the agenda from a resolution a number of us came together to craft:
WHEREAS, over 25% of women in the United States have been or will be a victim of domestic violence in her lifetime,
WHEREAS, according to the domestic Violence Resource Center, estimates range from 600,000 to 6 million women are physically abused by husbands or boyfriends every year, with the vast majority of instances unreported because of fear,
WHEREAS, more than 3 women are killed every day in the United States during episodes of domestic violence,
WHEREAS, domestic violence is too serious an issue with which to play partisan politics or selectively ignore according to partisan allegiance,
BE IT RESOLVED that the Arizona State Democratic Committee vehemently condemns all acts of domestic violence by anyone, regardless of political party.
The original resolution named names. This somewhat watered down version is the result of negotiations involving state party chair Andrei Cherney, but to his credit he is now allowing this to go forward. A bit of background may help flesh this out.
A Republican, Senator Scott Bundgaard, has been in the news quite a lot lately after an incident on a Phoenix roadway in which, according a police report, he beat up his girlfriend, Aubrey Ballard. Bundgaard has been condemned by the state Democratic party and many others for this action, which he rightly should be.
A Democrat, Representative Daniel Patterson, has not been condemned because he's been flying under the radar, so to speak, and like most in the state I had no clue about this until last month. Personally, I've always liked Representative Patterson and used to read his blog. He's been a great vote on everything from the evironment to protecting schools and I believe he is a genuine progressive. I met him once-- two months ago in Phoenix when he made a great speech outside the legislature during a protest on behalf of public employees. None of that prepared me for what I ran across on the Three Sonorans blog on March 9, a blog post including pictures of several police reports that have been filed against Representative Patterson, including one this past December involving a domestic violence episode involving his (now ex) wife, Jeneiene Schaffer. Most troubling in the Three Sonorans article was the allegation that state and Pima county party officials as well as leaders in the legislature have known about Representative Patterson's behavior including at least two incidents of violence involving his wife for sometime and chose to kick it under the rug and deter any serious inquiry about it.
I don't believe in giving someone a mulligan because they are a good vote on the environment. It is always wrong for a man to use force or threaten to use force against a woman, but also believing in fairness I decided the best course to take would be to ask Representative Patterson about it. So, I went to his facebook page and he had, as luck (or maybe pre-emptiveness, who can know?) would have it, he put up a post that day regarding his co-sponsorship of a domestic violence resolution.
That facebook page is here:
Daniel Patterson's March 9 facebook post on domestic violence.
I am here cutting and pasting the transcription of that conversation including his response:
Daniel's Profile • Daniel's Wall
•
Daniel R. Patterson
My bipartisan work against domestic violence in #Arizona http://bit.ly/eUZvU5 #Tucson
March 9 at 9:26am via TweetDeck •LikeUnlike •
o
Eli Blake I'm sure you'll erase this comment but I am very disappointed in what I read online a moment ago from the three Sonorans.
March 9 at 9:59pm • LikeUnlike
Daniel R. Patterson So am I. It is not true.
March 10 at 9:37am • LikeUnlike
I wish I could save a screenshot but unfortunately this computer won't allow me to do that.
Representative Patterson did not erase my comment, and he denied that this was true. Fair enough. Anyone can write anything on a blog after all, and it is necessary for those of us who are bloggers to police ourselves. Some bloggers do a better job than others of making sure that everything they write is factually correct. And even if it is, blogs by definition reflect one person's view of the world and don't try to keep things balanced. So if all that came out about this was the Three Sonorans piece I'd have to give Representative Patterson the benefit of the doubt.
However, that wasn't all there was of this. First, the police reports photographed in the article, do in fact, exist. I verified this with some folks down there. Then it turned out that there was an article about his penchant for violence two years ago in the Tucson paper. Then another newspaper, the Arizona Guardian published a story on Daniel Patterson. Most importantly, the Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence called on Representative Patterson as well as Senator Bundgaard to resign from the legislature. I trust the ACADV and know they would not make a call like that without having good facts to back it up.
Turned out that I wasn't the only person thoroughly disgusted with both Rep. Patterson and with the state party's calls for Sen. Bundgaard to step down while knowing full well that we had exactly the same dirty laundry to take care of in our own house. To create a double standard here is to turn domestic violence into a political football that it is too much of an important issue to be turned into.
Several of us, including primarily myself, Diane D'Angelo, Pat Fleming and Judy Nagle began to coalesce around the basic premise that this needs to be brought out into the open so that the rank and file in our party (not to mention voters) at least know about it, and that we feel that some of the leadership in the state and Pima county party should not be supporting, much less covering up for, a man who has been accused of beating his wife. True that he has not been charged for that but at the same time his contention that the police reports are false (all of them?) just doesn't hold water. Yes, you can certainly find anyone who lives in a black or latino neighborhood who could probably relate to you a story about someone they know who was written up falsely by the police, but this involved several different officers over several years and rep. Patterson sounds less than convincing when he contends that the police reports are false.
Let me add here, that it is no secret that Representative Patterson has been dating his campaign manager for at least the past year. I don't care about someone's affair or their messy divorce (that's between them and their spouse) but I DO care about one other issue that came up out of all this: Representative Patterson has not been paying his child support. He did make a March payment after all of this came up but he's still two months in arrears. It would be one thing if he was unable to make child support payments (I've known some men who actually were unable to because of loss of income or illness) but he has been employed the whole time, and has chosen to deny payments both to his wife and for the raising of their daughter. That's not specifically what this resolution is about but it is a real and ongoing concern.
As I said, there are quite a few of us who came together to push this forward. Former Representative Fleming has agreed to read the proposed resolution on the floor. The plan is for others who feel that domestic violence is wrong regardless of who is doing it, to stand behind her while she is reading it. I for one will do so proudly. The Democratic Party has always been the party of the powerless against the oppressor, and it is worth remembering that oppression can happen just as much in a home or an apartment as it can happen in a society or in a workplace.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Thursday, March 10, 2011
2010 Arizona Census data up
The U.S. Census bureau has released its count for Arizona.
Navajo County's population of over 107,000 is up 10.2 % from last census but is more than 5,000 less than a 2009 estimate of what it should be. Overall, Arizona is the only state in the country to be more than 2% below what the statisticians estimated in 2009 that the 2010 population would be. Wonder of SB 1070 had anything to do with that?
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Rodney vs. Andrei: a comparison of priorities
I wrote a post last month, shortly after Rodney Glassman had announced his candidacy for AZDP chair, on why I was supporting him.
Since then, Andrei Cherny, who ran last year for state treasurer, has announced he is running.
Unlike some, I don't have a reason to throw spitwads because I believe that we have two qualified candidates either of whom could do the job if elected. However, I believe that Glassman is clearly still the superior choice. To understand why, do a side by side comparison.
1. Glassman, as was noted when I wrote my original blog post, campaigned in all parts of the state. Cherny (and I referred to this then but didn't name him because his candidacy was not yet official) waited until Sunday before the Tuesday election to begin a tour of rural counties. As a rural Arizonan I have often seen our candidates, who we work very hard to recruit, left high and dry by the state party apparatus. Rodney has demonstrated his commitment to work hard in rural Arizona (even going out of his way to collect signatures to qualify for the ballot in all fifteen counties when by law he only needed enough in three) while Andrei, just based on last year's election, has not yet shown a similar commitment (as an example, we didn't even get Andrei's signs to put up in Navajo County until early October, and then we got very few of them.)
2. Rodney Glassman has committed to continuing to use the resources of the state party to help pay for our outreach on the Navajo and Hopi reservations and in fact expand the model to provide outreach on all the other reservations around the state. Native Americans vote 90% for Democrats when they turn out, about the same as African-Americans, but their turnout rates have been very low historically. This commitment on the part of Glassman is one reason why the person presently holding the highest elected position of any Native American elected official in the state, Senator Jack Jackson, has come out and stood squarely behind Rodney. I've known Jack for a long time and I know that he understands the challenges that Democrats face in campaigning in native American communities so his endorsement of Rodney means a lot.
3. Rodney, in keeping with his belief that we can be competitive anywhere in the state, announced early on a thirty district strategy, in which the party would set a goal to field a full slate of 90 legislative candidates in all thirty districts and then provide resources to help them. I mentioned this in my original blog post. Andrei Cherny, when he announced his candidacy two weeks later, had exactly the same plan. It may be that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but let's be clear here-- this was Rodney's plan and he deserves the credit for it. I'm glad that Andrei jumped on board with it, because it's a good plan.
4. Likely the most controversial topic-- the rules debate. Rodney Glassman, who has been elected to and has held office as a city counselor and Vice Mayor in Tucson (so he certainly as an understanding of what it takes to win an election,) has never let his commitment to serve as an elected precinct committeeman lapse. As many know, the rules state that only an elected P.C. can run for party offices. There may be an attempt made on the floor to amend this to allow an appointed PC (which Andrei is) to run. In fact, and I've been very clear on this with Rodney and he understands and respects my position-- I might even support such a rule change because I believe that giving people a choice is in the best interest of democracy and our tradition of free elections. However, let's be clear about this: the reason there even is a debate is because Rodney Glassman is the candidate who made the commitment last year to serve as a precinct committeeman, while Andrei Cherny did not (and there is no reason to believe that he would have, had he won his election.) The non-glamorous grunt work of a precinct committeemember-- we all know what it is-- the phone banking, the door knocking, the pole pounding, the table staffing, the signature gathering-- is something that Rodney Glassman signed up to do (whether he had beaten John McCain or not.) Personally, I'd prefer a state party chair who understands the view from the bottom and isn't afraid of digging in himself and wearing off a little shoe leather. Whether you believe the by-laws are a defining issue or not, the fact that Cherny had to be appointed as a PC just in order to run while Glassman took the trouble and showed the commitment to be one last year when it was time to get on the ballot for PC, is certainly another good reason to support him.
As I said earlier, I don't believe that either candidate is a bad candidate, but I believe that Rodney Glassman is clearly the better candidate.
Since then, Andrei Cherny, who ran last year for state treasurer, has announced he is running.
Unlike some, I don't have a reason to throw spitwads because I believe that we have two qualified candidates either of whom could do the job if elected. However, I believe that Glassman is clearly still the superior choice. To understand why, do a side by side comparison.
1. Glassman, as was noted when I wrote my original blog post, campaigned in all parts of the state. Cherny (and I referred to this then but didn't name him because his candidacy was not yet official) waited until Sunday before the Tuesday election to begin a tour of rural counties. As a rural Arizonan I have often seen our candidates, who we work very hard to recruit, left high and dry by the state party apparatus. Rodney has demonstrated his commitment to work hard in rural Arizona (even going out of his way to collect signatures to qualify for the ballot in all fifteen counties when by law he only needed enough in three) while Andrei, just based on last year's election, has not yet shown a similar commitment (as an example, we didn't even get Andrei's signs to put up in Navajo County until early October, and then we got very few of them.)
2. Rodney Glassman has committed to continuing to use the resources of the state party to help pay for our outreach on the Navajo and Hopi reservations and in fact expand the model to provide outreach on all the other reservations around the state. Native Americans vote 90% for Democrats when they turn out, about the same as African-Americans, but their turnout rates have been very low historically. This commitment on the part of Glassman is one reason why the person presently holding the highest elected position of any Native American elected official in the state, Senator Jack Jackson, has come out and stood squarely behind Rodney. I've known Jack for a long time and I know that he understands the challenges that Democrats face in campaigning in native American communities so his endorsement of Rodney means a lot.
3. Rodney, in keeping with his belief that we can be competitive anywhere in the state, announced early on a thirty district strategy, in which the party would set a goal to field a full slate of 90 legislative candidates in all thirty districts and then provide resources to help them. I mentioned this in my original blog post. Andrei Cherny, when he announced his candidacy two weeks later, had exactly the same plan. It may be that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but let's be clear here-- this was Rodney's plan and he deserves the credit for it. I'm glad that Andrei jumped on board with it, because it's a good plan.
4. Likely the most controversial topic-- the rules debate. Rodney Glassman, who has been elected to and has held office as a city counselor and Vice Mayor in Tucson (so he certainly as an understanding of what it takes to win an election,) has never let his commitment to serve as an elected precinct committeeman lapse. As many know, the rules state that only an elected P.C. can run for party offices. There may be an attempt made on the floor to amend this to allow an appointed PC (which Andrei is) to run. In fact, and I've been very clear on this with Rodney and he understands and respects my position-- I might even support such a rule change because I believe that giving people a choice is in the best interest of democracy and our tradition of free elections. However, let's be clear about this: the reason there even is a debate is because Rodney Glassman is the candidate who made the commitment last year to serve as a precinct committeeman, while Andrei Cherny did not (and there is no reason to believe that he would have, had he won his election.) The non-glamorous grunt work of a precinct committeemember-- we all know what it is-- the phone banking, the door knocking, the pole pounding, the table staffing, the signature gathering-- is something that Rodney Glassman signed up to do (whether he had beaten John McCain or not.) Personally, I'd prefer a state party chair who understands the view from the bottom and isn't afraid of digging in himself and wearing off a little shoe leather. Whether you believe the by-laws are a defining issue or not, the fact that Cherny had to be appointed as a PC just in order to run while Glassman took the trouble and showed the commitment to be one last year when it was time to get on the ballot for PC, is certainly another good reason to support him.
As I said earlier, I don't believe that either candidate is a bad candidate, but I believe that Rodney Glassman is clearly the better candidate.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Predictions for 2011
New Year's predictions for 2011:
January: While the Republicans are reading the Constitution on the floor of the House, Nancy Pelosi will surreptitiously insert the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) into their document and they will read through it without noticing.
February: The House will pass a bill to repeal health care reform. Except of course for theirs. To make sure that 'Tea Party' freshman Andy "I'm in it for Meeee!" Harris (R-MD) is happy an amendment will be included to guarantee that members of Congress never even have to go a day without their government paid health care plan.
March: Congress will take a vote on raising the debt ceiling. They will agree only when it is pointed out how much of the debt is due to corporate welfare being paid to banks, pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, defense contractors and other big campaign contributors. We'll learn that the fastest way to quiet down a 'Tea Party Republican' is when the corporate fat cats that gave hundreds of millions to American Crossroads to get them elected this year give them a call to remind them, 'you're working for us. We bought you, remember?' As a concession to those who actually thought they would vote against raising the ceiling, John Boehner will agree to cry for five minutes.
April: Russell Pearce will get the legislature to pass a bill requiring that schools and other public buildings include a loaded handgun in an emergency case next to every fire extinguisher. Needless to say, no funds will be provided to pay for this ('us pay for it after making you do it? You've got to be joking!!')
May: Sarah Palin will say she still hasn't decided about whether to run for President and the press will write about nothing else for a month. Later on she will announce she is running, but then once all her supporters have sent her money she will abruptly quit.
June: LeBron James and the Heat will fall flat in the NBA playoffs and set up another Celtics-Lakers NBA final. Sorry folks. In the NBA, the Celtics are the kings, the Lakers are the dukes and everybody else is just another basketball team. If LeBron wanted to beat Kobe for a title he should have signed with Boston.
July: Democrats will prevail in the Congressional softball game after 'tea party' Republicans force three 'establishment' players, including the first baseman, off the team for being left-handed. They will replace them with true righties.
August: Hundreds of birthers will fly to Kenya to celebrate President Obama's fiftieth birthday. Local residents will take their passports and supply them with Kenyan credentials, and when they come back Joe Arpaio will accidentally arrest them for being 'illegal' and send them to Durango Prison. After several days of inhuman conditions they will be put on a bus for Nogales, where they will immediately be kidnapped by the zetas and held for ransom. The mistake will eventually be discovered and the U.S. state department will send Bill Richardson on a mission to the zetas to negotiate their release but it will be educational for them to find out what life is like for immigrants in Arizona without proper documentation.
September: A major hurricane will hit New Jersey. Governor Chris Christie will ask the White House to delay issuing a disaster declaration until he finishes his Caribbean Cruise vacation. Newark will be the only city in the state where people get debris cleared out of the roadway because Mayor Booker will be out there operating a backhoe himself.
October: By this point in the year, the Tea Party will have tried to push through so much bad legislation that three cornered hats with powdered wigs and buckle shoes will be big for Halloween.
November: Russell Pearce will announce that he wants all turkeys being shipped into the state opened and inspected to make sure nobody is smuggling an anchor baby inside.
December: State workers will be called into emergency duty at the state capitol on Christmas Day, after it is discovered that Santa stopped directly over the building and dumped several tons of coal on it.
January: While the Republicans are reading the Constitution on the floor of the House, Nancy Pelosi will surreptitiously insert the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) into their document and they will read through it without noticing.
February: The House will pass a bill to repeal health care reform. Except of course for theirs. To make sure that 'Tea Party' freshman Andy "I'm in it for Meeee!" Harris (R-MD) is happy an amendment will be included to guarantee that members of Congress never even have to go a day without their government paid health care plan.
March: Congress will take a vote on raising the debt ceiling. They will agree only when it is pointed out how much of the debt is due to corporate welfare being paid to banks, pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, defense contractors and other big campaign contributors. We'll learn that the fastest way to quiet down a 'Tea Party Republican' is when the corporate fat cats that gave hundreds of millions to American Crossroads to get them elected this year give them a call to remind them, 'you're working for us. We bought you, remember?' As a concession to those who actually thought they would vote against raising the ceiling, John Boehner will agree to cry for five minutes.
April: Russell Pearce will get the legislature to pass a bill requiring that schools and other public buildings include a loaded handgun in an emergency case next to every fire extinguisher. Needless to say, no funds will be provided to pay for this ('us pay for it after making you do it? You've got to be joking!!')
May: Sarah Palin will say she still hasn't decided about whether to run for President and the press will write about nothing else for a month. Later on she will announce she is running, but then once all her supporters have sent her money she will abruptly quit.
June: LeBron James and the Heat will fall flat in the NBA playoffs and set up another Celtics-Lakers NBA final. Sorry folks. In the NBA, the Celtics are the kings, the Lakers are the dukes and everybody else is just another basketball team. If LeBron wanted to beat Kobe for a title he should have signed with Boston.
July: Democrats will prevail in the Congressional softball game after 'tea party' Republicans force three 'establishment' players, including the first baseman, off the team for being left-handed. They will replace them with true righties.
August: Hundreds of birthers will fly to Kenya to celebrate President Obama's fiftieth birthday. Local residents will take their passports and supply them with Kenyan credentials, and when they come back Joe Arpaio will accidentally arrest them for being 'illegal' and send them to Durango Prison. After several days of inhuman conditions they will be put on a bus for Nogales, where they will immediately be kidnapped by the zetas and held for ransom. The mistake will eventually be discovered and the U.S. state department will send Bill Richardson on a mission to the zetas to negotiate their release but it will be educational for them to find out what life is like for immigrants in Arizona without proper documentation.
September: A major hurricane will hit New Jersey. Governor Chris Christie will ask the White House to delay issuing a disaster declaration until he finishes his Caribbean Cruise vacation. Newark will be the only city in the state where people get debris cleared out of the roadway because Mayor Booker will be out there operating a backhoe himself.
October: By this point in the year, the Tea Party will have tried to push through so much bad legislation that three cornered hats with powdered wigs and buckle shoes will be big for Halloween.
November: Russell Pearce will announce that he wants all turkeys being shipped into the state opened and inspected to make sure nobody is smuggling an anchor baby inside.
December: State workers will be called into emergency duty at the state capitol on Christmas Day, after it is discovered that Santa stopped directly over the building and dumped several tons of coal on it.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Why I support Rodney Glassman as Arizona Democratic Party Chair
Last week, Rodney Glassman, who some of you may know ran for the U.S. Senate against John McCain earlier this year, contacted me to ask if I would support him for chair of the state party. I called back and asked him some questions that I had, and I am convinced that he is the right man for the job.
The first reason I and many others are supporting him is that he has promised (once the redistricting commission has done their work) to develop a 30 district strategy that will aim to 1) put Democrats on the ballot for all ninety legislative seats, and 2) run a competitive race for each of them. I believe this can be done. It is certainly true that we should get a better legislative map than the 2000 map (it would be hard to get one that was worse than what was, let's face it, a Republican gerrymander even though drawn by an ostensibly non-partisan commission.) However, even in Republican districts, Democrats can win if we can match winning candidates with a winning message. As proof consider that former Governor Janet Napolitano, besides winning very heavily among Democratic and Independent voters, in 2006 also got a third of the votes of registered Republicans. So if we assume from this that a third of registered Republicans are at least willing to consider voting for a Democrat, Glassman's 30-district strategy seems very reasonable. In 2012, especially after two years of Pearce-Brewer budgets it's hard to imagine that voters won't be at least willing to listen to what we have to say.
That's the second reason I support Rodney Glassman. He wants to craft a message that matches the main concerns that people here have: the economy, education and jobs. Many people are feeling economically insecure and see their bills rising higher and higher while their economic prospects diminish and they worry about layoffs and unemployment. Republicans have always diverted attention from this by finding a convenient scapegoat, be it Washington or Latino immigrants or unions or any number of other distractions. The failure of Arizona Democrats to answer with a cogent, consistent economic message has often meant that these distractions are successful by default.
Rodney Glassman not only believes that we can do this, but he is willing to approach it with the same optimism that spurred him to run against the 2008 Republican nominee for President of the United States and still get more votes and raise more money against John McCain in Arizona than any Democrat ever has.
The third reason why I support Rodney Glassman is that he is committed to the whole state, especially rural counties. He told me that the success we in Navajo County had on the reservation through the help of the state party hiring a Native American Outreach coordinator based in Navajo County while we provided the infrastructure is a model for what we should do on all reservations and he's willing to commit to making it happen through his leadership of the state party. Turnout is always poor on the reservations (for example it was ony about 10% on the White Mountain Apache reservation) but the Navajo reservation was one of the few reservations where turnout numbers were reasonable. When Arizona native Americans vote they vote 90% for Democrats so building and expanding this outreach is crucial for reaching Native American voters. Further, as a party vice chair from a rural county I have been impressed with his outreach to every part of the state. Rodney Glassman made sure, even though by state law he only had to collect sufficient signatures in three counties to qualify for the ballot in his Senate race, that he collected them from all fifteen counties. And in stark contrast to his likely opponent who famously visited every county in the state during a 48 hour blitz on Sunday and Monday right before the election, Rodney Glassman visited around the state during the actual campaign and made it clear that winning votes in outstate Arizona is a priority for him.
Finally, Rodney told me when I talked to him that he plans to serve as state party chair full time if he is elected. In the past our state chairs have not done that, splitting their time with their job. For example, Don Bivens still practices law and recently served as a member of the board of the American Bar Association. Certainly a worthy thing to do, but it meant that he was unable to serve as party chair full time. Rodney is able to do so, between the fact that he does have the personal resources and his wife is working full time. In so doing, I believe he will supply the energy and organization that can only be provided by a full time chair. It also means that he will be available 100% of the time. If you call or contact Rodney he will take your call or listen to your message and get back to you. A party chair must be accessible and he will do that.
The Arizona Democratic party certainly has a wide range of intelligent, capable people. We have a unique opportunity ot make gains in 2012 when many incumbent legislators will be running in new districts. I believe that Rodney Glassman is the man who can turn these opportunities into reality.
Or, as James Carville once put it in a book that laid out a Democratic strategy for winning the country back during the Bush years, "I'm sick of losing." So is Rodney.
The first reason I and many others are supporting him is that he has promised (once the redistricting commission has done their work) to develop a 30 district strategy that will aim to 1) put Democrats on the ballot for all ninety legislative seats, and 2) run a competitive race for each of them. I believe this can be done. It is certainly true that we should get a better legislative map than the 2000 map (it would be hard to get one that was worse than what was, let's face it, a Republican gerrymander even though drawn by an ostensibly non-partisan commission.) However, even in Republican districts, Democrats can win if we can match winning candidates with a winning message. As proof consider that former Governor Janet Napolitano, besides winning very heavily among Democratic and Independent voters, in 2006 also got a third of the votes of registered Republicans. So if we assume from this that a third of registered Republicans are at least willing to consider voting for a Democrat, Glassman's 30-district strategy seems very reasonable. In 2012, especially after two years of Pearce-Brewer budgets it's hard to imagine that voters won't be at least willing to listen to what we have to say.
That's the second reason I support Rodney Glassman. He wants to craft a message that matches the main concerns that people here have: the economy, education and jobs. Many people are feeling economically insecure and see their bills rising higher and higher while their economic prospects diminish and they worry about layoffs and unemployment. Republicans have always diverted attention from this by finding a convenient scapegoat, be it Washington or Latino immigrants or unions or any number of other distractions. The failure of Arizona Democrats to answer with a cogent, consistent economic message has often meant that these distractions are successful by default.
Rodney Glassman not only believes that we can do this, but he is willing to approach it with the same optimism that spurred him to run against the 2008 Republican nominee for President of the United States and still get more votes and raise more money against John McCain in Arizona than any Democrat ever has.
The third reason why I support Rodney Glassman is that he is committed to the whole state, especially rural counties. He told me that the success we in Navajo County had on the reservation through the help of the state party hiring a Native American Outreach coordinator based in Navajo County while we provided the infrastructure is a model for what we should do on all reservations and he's willing to commit to making it happen through his leadership of the state party. Turnout is always poor on the reservations (for example it was ony about 10% on the White Mountain Apache reservation) but the Navajo reservation was one of the few reservations where turnout numbers were reasonable. When Arizona native Americans vote they vote 90% for Democrats so building and expanding this outreach is crucial for reaching Native American voters. Further, as a party vice chair from a rural county I have been impressed with his outreach to every part of the state. Rodney Glassman made sure, even though by state law he only had to collect sufficient signatures in three counties to qualify for the ballot in his Senate race, that he collected them from all fifteen counties. And in stark contrast to his likely opponent who famously visited every county in the state during a 48 hour blitz on Sunday and Monday right before the election, Rodney Glassman visited around the state during the actual campaign and made it clear that winning votes in outstate Arizona is a priority for him.
Finally, Rodney told me when I talked to him that he plans to serve as state party chair full time if he is elected. In the past our state chairs have not done that, splitting their time with their job. For example, Don Bivens still practices law and recently served as a member of the board of the American Bar Association. Certainly a worthy thing to do, but it meant that he was unable to serve as party chair full time. Rodney is able to do so, between the fact that he does have the personal resources and his wife is working full time. In so doing, I believe he will supply the energy and organization that can only be provided by a full time chair. It also means that he will be available 100% of the time. If you call or contact Rodney he will take your call or listen to your message and get back to you. A party chair must be accessible and he will do that.
The Arizona Democratic party certainly has a wide range of intelligent, capable people. We have a unique opportunity ot make gains in 2012 when many incumbent legislators will be running in new districts. I believe that Rodney Glassman is the man who can turn these opportunities into reality.
Or, as James Carville once put it in a book that laid out a Democratic strategy for winning the country back during the Bush years, "I'm sick of losing." So is Rodney.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Jon Kyl defends earmark after voting against earmarks by pointing out administration supports the earmark
You know I've been spending way too much time on Facebook when it's been TWO MONTHS since I wrote a blog post. Granted, I was working on the election for the first part of that time (even though no candidate I worked for above the level of Justice of the Peace won-- but looking at the 'glass half full' side at least in Navajo County Democrats did win two of the three JP races that were contested, and the one we lost was in a 3-to-1 Republican area but Elaine Curiel still made a race of that one.) I'm glad that Evelyn Marez won handily here for Justice of the Peace. Races above that, well I'm looking forward to 2012.
However, I do want to get back to blogging (even if I still post all kinds of stuff on FB that would be great blog material) so I'll srart by again, calling Senator Kyl a hypocrite. Most of you (if anyone still looks at this blog after two months) know that he is the Senator who joined his GOP colleagues in voting to ban earmarks, and then only 72 hours later added an earmark to a bill. You may not know that the earmark is for a water project on the Whiteriver Apache reservation here in Navajo County. So, I support the earmark, but I don't pretend to be against earmarks. I called Senator Kyl's office today about it and the young guy who answered the phone read verbatim from a statement he was supposed to read to people who called about the earmark essentially saying the earmark was not an earmark. I expressed some skepticism about that and his next response floored me:
"It has the support of the administration."
Uh,...yeah. It does. And like I just wrote, it has my support. But it appears that Jon Kyl is playing both sides of the fence here. He is publically claiming he is against earmarks and is openly doing everything he can to defeat the Obama agenda (witness START) but is then defending his 'first-over-the-line' earmark by saying, "it has the support of the administration."
However, I do want to get back to blogging (even if I still post all kinds of stuff on FB that would be great blog material) so I'll srart by again, calling Senator Kyl a hypocrite. Most of you (if anyone still looks at this blog after two months) know that he is the Senator who joined his GOP colleagues in voting to ban earmarks, and then only 72 hours later added an earmark to a bill. You may not know that the earmark is for a water project on the Whiteriver Apache reservation here in Navajo County. So, I support the earmark, but I don't pretend to be against earmarks. I called Senator Kyl's office today about it and the young guy who answered the phone read verbatim from a statement he was supposed to read to people who called about the earmark essentially saying the earmark was not an earmark. I expressed some skepticism about that and his next response floored me:
"It has the support of the administration."
Uh,...yeah. It does. And like I just wrote, it has my support. But it appears that Jon Kyl is playing both sides of the fence here. He is publically claiming he is against earmarks and is openly doing everything he can to defeat the Obama agenda (witness START) but is then defending his 'first-over-the-line' earmark by saying, "it has the support of the administration."
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Don't be afraid to tell people bad news
What the report out the past day or so about the BP Oil spill makes it clear is how much the administration has been caught up in the whole Washington trap of trying to candy coat everything.
Start with the economy. Even today, most people don't blame Obama for it.
But the reports of 'greenshoots' last year and continuously trying to talk it up have had an effect-- not on the economy, but on the administration's credibility.
Then there is Afghanistan. Remember that the Bush administration's repeated assertions that things were going well in Iraq when they were not destroyed their credibility over time. But it seems as if the Obama administration is repeating the same mistakes. We still have no clear mission, no definition of what a 'victory' even is, and we are losing American soldiers and dumping money into it, for WHAT? Who knows anymore? But whatever it is, is still getting sugar coated by the administration.
So now the oil spill report comes out. The oil spill was another situation that Obama did not create-- it was BP's fault. But now we learn that the administration was continually trying to minimize the apparent scope of the disaster, sticking to numbers that were only 1/60th the actual size of the spill.
My question is, WHY!!?? Why carry BP's water on this and get slicked yourself as a result? I don't understand that. Is it a reflexive reaction in Washington that when you are in control all news must be spun to the positive side?
Americans are adults and would like to be treated accordingly. If the news is bad, then tell us the bad news.
In 1940, Winston Churchill took over from Neville Chamberlin during the most discouraging days of World War II. He made a speech in which he promised the British people, "I have nothing to offer you but blood, tears, sweat and toil." Then a couple of weeks later as German forces closed in on Paris he began a speech with, "The news from France is very, very bad" before going into details. Whatever one might think of Churchill, he set a mold with those two speeches that it would do well for our politicians to follow.
When you only spin all news as good, you close the trap upon yourself. You now own it, any failure to live up to what you've said (i.e. reality) becomes a disappointment, and after enough times of crying "no wolf!" people start to not believe you and all you can do is scream "Happy, happy news, all is well!" all the louder to compensate. Eventually you blow out the amplifier.
This is something it would behoove President Obama to learn as soon as possible.
Start with the economy. Even today, most people don't blame Obama for it.
But the reports of 'greenshoots' last year and continuously trying to talk it up have had an effect-- not on the economy, but on the administration's credibility.
Then there is Afghanistan. Remember that the Bush administration's repeated assertions that things were going well in Iraq when they were not destroyed their credibility over time. But it seems as if the Obama administration is repeating the same mistakes. We still have no clear mission, no definition of what a 'victory' even is, and we are losing American soldiers and dumping money into it, for WHAT? Who knows anymore? But whatever it is, is still getting sugar coated by the administration.
So now the oil spill report comes out. The oil spill was another situation that Obama did not create-- it was BP's fault. But now we learn that the administration was continually trying to minimize the apparent scope of the disaster, sticking to numbers that were only 1/60th the actual size of the spill.
My question is, WHY!!?? Why carry BP's water on this and get slicked yourself as a result? I don't understand that. Is it a reflexive reaction in Washington that when you are in control all news must be spun to the positive side?
Americans are adults and would like to be treated accordingly. If the news is bad, then tell us the bad news.
In 1940, Winston Churchill took over from Neville Chamberlin during the most discouraging days of World War II. He made a speech in which he promised the British people, "I have nothing to offer you but blood, tears, sweat and toil." Then a couple of weeks later as German forces closed in on Paris he began a speech with, "The news from France is very, very bad" before going into details. Whatever one might think of Churchill, he set a mold with those two speeches that it would do well for our politicians to follow.
When you only spin all news as good, you close the trap upon yourself. You now own it, any failure to live up to what you've said (i.e. reality) becomes a disappointment, and after enough times of crying "no wolf!" people start to not believe you and all you can do is scream "Happy, happy news, all is well!" all the louder to compensate. Eventually you blow out the amplifier.
This is something it would behoove President Obama to learn as soon as possible.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Of armed mice and blasting mountains apart in God's name
Which of the following quotes is fake?
. American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains. So they’re already into this experiment.
-- Delaware GOP Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell, in an interview with the Bill O'Reilly show in 2007.
"I don’t think anybody’s going to be missing a hill or two here and there
-- Kentucky GOP Senate nominee Rand Paul
I hope that's not where we're going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."
—Nevada GOP Senate nominee Sharron Angle, floating the possibility of armed insurrection in a radio interview, Jan. 2010
"We would be much better off with a closer relationship between church and state."
-- Colorado GOP Senate nominee Ken Buck, in an interview on the Jim Pfaff show, May 21, 2010
Sadly, none of these quotes are false. If Republicans take over the Senate, these are the people who will be running the show.
The Tea-Party driven GOP is rapidly deteriorating into the party of complete wackos. No wonder so many of them are birthers.
. American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains. So they’re already into this experiment.
-- Delaware GOP Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell, in an interview with the Bill O'Reilly show in 2007.
"I don’t think anybody’s going to be missing a hill or two here and there
-- Kentucky GOP Senate nominee Rand Paul
I hope that's not where we're going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."
—Nevada GOP Senate nominee Sharron Angle, floating the possibility of armed insurrection in a radio interview, Jan. 2010
"We would be much better off with a closer relationship between church and state."
-- Colorado GOP Senate nominee Ken Buck, in an interview on the Jim Pfaff show, May 21, 2010
Sadly, none of these quotes are false. If Republicans take over the Senate, these are the people who will be running the show.
The Tea-Party driven GOP is rapidly deteriorating into the party of complete wackos. No wonder so many of them are birthers.
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
Does Paul Gosar trust the voters? Doesn't look that way to me.
It's been two weeks since the Arizona primary it's still true that nobody knows who Paul Gosar is.
And I think he wants to keep it that way. The Republican challenging Ann Kirkpatrick for Congress still hasn't put much of anything on his website beyond that he was named 'Dentist of the Year.' OK, well Doc Holliday was a dentist too. I want to know more than that. But I've been to his website several times and have learned practically nothing about his views on complex subjects like Social Security, education and HOW to balance the budget (since he says he supports a balanced budget amendment) while also cutting taxes (since he also says he wants to do that.) IF he really thinks he can balance the budget while cutting taxes, I'd like to have some hint of exactly where he will cut trillions out of the budget because that is what it would take.
Why not answer this? Don't the voters have a right to an answer? Well, apparently not, I guess.
I have found video of him on the internet, but he's always speaking to the same tea party base. In some places that might be enough, but Arizona district one is a huge district with a very diverse group of voters. But apparently he doesn't trust the rest of us enough to actually talk to us.
Even his web ads are nothing but a sign with his name on it interspersed with a stream of standard GOP rhetoric (this could have been any Republican campaign ad for the past quarter century.)
Last week, Rep. Kirkpatrick sent Gosar a letter challenging him to a series of five debates. He has not responded yet. As a guy with low name recognition, don't you think he'd welcome the opportunity to have not just one, but five debates against the incumbent he hopes to replace? Heck, Terry Goddard can't even get Jan Brewer to agree to ONE debate, and here Ann Kirkpatrick, who wants to let people have the opportunity to see, hear and decide based on what they have seen and heard, offers Gosar FIVE debates and he can't even decide whether he wants to debate her?
WHY NOT? It seems clear that he doesn't trust the voters to actually watch him in a debate.
Maybe he's playing 'stealth' now because some of what he has said, is certainly open to question. For starters, last week he said he's "not a fan" of the seventeenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution and it seems he wants to repeal it.
That's the amendment that allows us to vote for our own U.S. Senators. He would prefer the legislature do it. Is he serious about that? Think about the Arizona legislature for a moment, and ask whether you'd want Russell Pearce and Ron Gould naming a U.S. Senator, rather than you having the right to vote for one.
Apparently once again, Paul Gosar doesn't trust the voters and wants to take away our right to vote for our representation in the United States Senate.
I for one value my right to vote. And while I've sometimes not agreed with Representative Kirkpatrick (such as when she voted against the Energy Bill last year) I can see that she's considered the needs of a very large and very diverse district-- and it reflects in her voting record.
Let's remember that it was only two years ago that the last Republican to be elected in this district, who had earlier been named three years in a row to the list of 'Washington's dirtiest members of Congress,' a list where he joined luminaries like Duke Cunningham and William Jefferson-- declined to run again after being indicted on multiple counts of bribery, embezzlement and extortion. Ann Kirkpatrick has restored honor and personal integrity to the office of our district's member of the House of Representatives of the United States. For that alone, she would deserve re-election.
If Paul Gosar wants to aspire to such an office then he needs to come out and say who he is and be specific about what his plans are and how he plans to accomplish them. He's so far not done that.
And I think he wants to keep it that way. The Republican challenging Ann Kirkpatrick for Congress still hasn't put much of anything on his website beyond that he was named 'Dentist of the Year.' OK, well Doc Holliday was a dentist too. I want to know more than that. But I've been to his website several times and have learned practically nothing about his views on complex subjects like Social Security, education and HOW to balance the budget (since he says he supports a balanced budget amendment) while also cutting taxes (since he also says he wants to do that.) IF he really thinks he can balance the budget while cutting taxes, I'd like to have some hint of exactly where he will cut trillions out of the budget because that is what it would take.
Why not answer this? Don't the voters have a right to an answer? Well, apparently not, I guess.
I have found video of him on the internet, but he's always speaking to the same tea party base. In some places that might be enough, but Arizona district one is a huge district with a very diverse group of voters. But apparently he doesn't trust the rest of us enough to actually talk to us.
Even his web ads are nothing but a sign with his name on it interspersed with a stream of standard GOP rhetoric (this could have been any Republican campaign ad for the past quarter century.)
Last week, Rep. Kirkpatrick sent Gosar a letter challenging him to a series of five debates. He has not responded yet. As a guy with low name recognition, don't you think he'd welcome the opportunity to have not just one, but five debates against the incumbent he hopes to replace? Heck, Terry Goddard can't even get Jan Brewer to agree to ONE debate, and here Ann Kirkpatrick, who wants to let people have the opportunity to see, hear and decide based on what they have seen and heard, offers Gosar FIVE debates and he can't even decide whether he wants to debate her?
WHY NOT? It seems clear that he doesn't trust the voters to actually watch him in a debate.
Maybe he's playing 'stealth' now because some of what he has said, is certainly open to question. For starters, last week he said he's "not a fan" of the seventeenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution and it seems he wants to repeal it.
That's the amendment that allows us to vote for our own U.S. Senators. He would prefer the legislature do it. Is he serious about that? Think about the Arizona legislature for a moment, and ask whether you'd want Russell Pearce and Ron Gould naming a U.S. Senator, rather than you having the right to vote for one.
Apparently once again, Paul Gosar doesn't trust the voters and wants to take away our right to vote for our representation in the United States Senate.
I for one value my right to vote. And while I've sometimes not agreed with Representative Kirkpatrick (such as when she voted against the Energy Bill last year) I can see that she's considered the needs of a very large and very diverse district-- and it reflects in her voting record.
Let's remember that it was only two years ago that the last Republican to be elected in this district, who had earlier been named three years in a row to the list of 'Washington's dirtiest members of Congress,' a list where he joined luminaries like Duke Cunningham and William Jefferson-- declined to run again after being indicted on multiple counts of bribery, embezzlement and extortion. Ann Kirkpatrick has restored honor and personal integrity to the office of our district's member of the House of Representatives of the United States. For that alone, she would deserve re-election.
If Paul Gosar wants to aspire to such an office then he needs to come out and say who he is and be specific about what his plans are and how he plans to accomplish them. He's so far not done that.
Friday, August 20, 2010
John McCluskey caught; Report shows private prison was unacceptable
Thank God that last night, three weeks after it began, the private prison break ended. As much as she doesn't want to talk about it, it was Jan Brewer's call to shift some public prisons to private control. Her chief of staff and a top campaign aide both are lobbyists for the private prison industry, and it was her decision in January to allow the transfer of over 100 dangerous maximum security inmates, including murderers, rapists and other violent felons, to a medium security private prison that was built for DUI offenders.
We should salute the professionalism of law enforcement officers from several states and the Federal U.S. Marshal's Service, and a U.S. forest ranger that finally ended the private prison break yesterday after three weeks, two murders, a kidnapping, a shootout, auto theft and millions of dollars worth of man-hours. In contrast, this is how private prisons work:
Shortened hours that led to no patrols of the perimeter fences during shift changes, alarm systems that often did not work or resulted in false alarms, guards who took over an hour to respond when the alarm did go off, a prison door propped open with a rock...
Let's also not forget underpaid and poorly trained guards resulting in high turnover.
State prisons director Charles Ryan almost grudgingly had to admit that it was time to move almost 150 especially dangerous inmates, including all the convicted murderers, out of the 'medium-security' facility and back to a maximum security facility run by the state. No word on why it took them three weeks to even recognize it was time to do that.
The most telling paragraph:
Washington [spokesman for the private prison company] offered up this explanation for the blatant security failures: "We have a lot of new and young staff that have not yet integrated into our security practices, so we're going to go back to basics with that staff."
OF COURSE THEY DO!! I used to live near a private prison in New Mexico and they had people getting hired and moving on out of there almost like they do at a truck stop or a carnival. If you pay people just what you need to pay them to keep warm bodies present (which private prison companies do, after all they are mainly interested in maximizing profits) then an inexperienced workforce will be the usual situation, not something that is rare or remarkable. If anything, they probably have a more experienced than usual workforce now, because at least they have the recession to hold people in their jobs a little bit longer.
Once the economy picks up, they will leave even faster. If anyone remains there it will be the misfits and incompetents who can't get a job that pays any better. Anyone who is actually competent enough to be worth more will find a better paying job elsewhere, very likely with a state or federal prison or law enforcement agency.
Here's the absolute kicker: It took them SEVERAL HOURS to find this hole:
Private prisons are NOT the way to go. In a public prison with professional, career prison guards, there is nothing the inmates know that the guards don't know. Any other model is not as secure.
We should salute the professionalism of law enforcement officers from several states and the Federal U.S. Marshal's Service, and a U.S. forest ranger that finally ended the private prison break yesterday after three weeks, two murders, a kidnapping, a shootout, auto theft and millions of dollars worth of man-hours. In contrast, this is how private prisons work:
Shortened hours that led to no patrols of the perimeter fences during shift changes, alarm systems that often did not work or resulted in false alarms, guards who took over an hour to respond when the alarm did go off, a prison door propped open with a rock...
Let's also not forget underpaid and poorly trained guards resulting in high turnover.
State prisons director Charles Ryan almost grudgingly had to admit that it was time to move almost 150 especially dangerous inmates, including all the convicted murderers, out of the 'medium-security' facility and back to a maximum security facility run by the state. No word on why it took them three weeks to even recognize it was time to do that.
The most telling paragraph:
Washington [spokesman for the private prison company] offered up this explanation for the blatant security failures: "We have a lot of new and young staff that have not yet integrated into our security practices, so we're going to go back to basics with that staff."
OF COURSE THEY DO!! I used to live near a private prison in New Mexico and they had people getting hired and moving on out of there almost like they do at a truck stop or a carnival. If you pay people just what you need to pay them to keep warm bodies present (which private prison companies do, after all they are mainly interested in maximizing profits) then an inexperienced workforce will be the usual situation, not something that is rare or remarkable. If anything, they probably have a more experienced than usual workforce now, because at least they have the recession to hold people in their jobs a little bit longer.
Once the economy picks up, they will leave even faster. If anyone remains there it will be the misfits and incompetents who can't get a job that pays any better. Anyone who is actually competent enough to be worth more will find a better paying job elsewhere, very likely with a state or federal prison or law enforcement agency.
Here's the absolute kicker: It took them SEVERAL HOURS to find this hole:
Private prisons are NOT the way to go. In a public prison with professional, career prison guards, there is nothing the inmates know that the guards don't know. Any other model is not as secure.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Debate on Arizona prop 203
One of the more interesting moments in this week's state Democratic Party meeting came at the end. Rather than taking a stand either in favor of or against Arizona ballot proposition 203, a voter-initiated ballot initiative to allow and regulate medical marijuana dispensaries in the state, the party allowed one proponent and one opponent to each make their case.
As is so often the case in these types of debates, both sides had a point but then both also did not have a point.
Let me first clarify where I stand on the issue of marijuana. Like most Americans, I do not use marijuana. But also like many Americans (and at least one poll suggests a majority though most other polls disagree) I support making it legal for adults (no prescription required.)
That said, let me address the arguments on both sides of the question, beginning with those made by the speaker in favor of prop 203. The speaker pointed out that we have several times in the past voted in favor of marijuana for medical use with a prescription (a position that agrees with the views of an overwhelming majority of voters) but that without dispensaries this is a meaningless 'right' because there is no legal way to get it. Certainly that is a legitimate argument. All marijuana, before being used, must be produced. Then, unless the grower is also the sole user, it must be transported, and then sold to the eventual user. Of course all of these things, growing, transporting and selling marijuana are felony crimes. The idea of a dispensary is it gives a regulated but legal (at least according to the state) venue where transactions that would be illegal anyplace else can be conducted freely and without fear of the police (though there are still federal agents who technically could-- but very unlikely actually would-- show up and make arrests.) One immediate problem that has come up (and this is something the anti- guy said,) is that in many states a whole bunch of dispensaries are popping up and very few of the people who get marijuana are actually sick.
The question I have, then, is instead of dispensaries why not push for pharmacies to distribute marijuana? I know why they don't-- fear of a federal raid, but that is not a fear that can't be argued against given the low number of such raids.
However, if you really believe in legal access to medical marijuana (as I do) then why not push for such a prescription to be filled in a Pharmacy? Not only are pharmacists trained professionals who may even know about drug interactions and other side effects, but in fact it is reasonable to expect that you will be able to get any prescription filled at your pharmacy. For example, I use an inhaler for my asthma, but it would be ridiculous to get that prescription someplace that only sold inhalers. So why is medical marijuana any different? SELL IT AT THE PHARMACY!!!:
The second guy suggested not passing the bill for essentially two reasons. The first was that, as a physician, he's seen children and teens who have used marijuana and argues that their mental congition skills are lacking. As a result they do poorly in school. This is a good point, except that by making it he's acknowleging that the kids get it anyway. And it's true-- you can walk into any junior high school in America and probably learn who to talk to if you wanted to buy some pot. In fact, one could argue that legalizing it for adults would make marijuana more difficult for children to get (I will make that case further down.)
His second argument is that the system of dispensaries is being abused everywhere it is being tried (he had some statistics showing that only 2-3% of the people who use them have cancer, glaucoma or other conditions that are commonly cited as being treated by marijuana.) He talked about corruptible doctors who write prescriptions for 'pain' and make virtually their entire business off of writing prescriptions for marijuana. He then went on to say that this is a 'back-door path' to legalization. And you know what? He's right about that.
And that's why I may end up voting against this (haven't decided yet.) As a supporter of legalization I think those of us who believe that it should be legal shouldn't try to sneak in through the back door but should instead walk in through the front door. Clearly this is a debate that needs to be had, but let's as a society have a candid and forthright discussion about marijuana legalization, and not try to 'trick' anyone into voting for de-facto legalization. There are some very good arguments to be made for legalizing it. Let me lay a few of them out:
1. Marijuana is not any more hazardous to our health than is tobacco or alcohol. They are all bad for us, but we have as a society decided that in the absence of an imminent danger just by the fact of use, that people have the right to be stupid and use tobacco and alcohol, and it is hard to suggest that marijuana is any worse for you. In fact in some ways it is better (for example, it is possible to die from an overdose of alcohol or nicotine, and some people have, but you can't O.D. on marijuana.)
2. We now spend tens of millions of dollars in Arizona (and billions nationally) catching and prosecuting growers, shippers and venders of marijuana, and our prisons and courts are stuffed to capacity. In this time of strained state budgets around the country (certainly including Arizona) can we really afford to keep millions of people in prison for selling pot?
3. Legalizing it would be a body blow to the drug cartels, as they now make most of their money from growing, smuggling and selling hemp. True that they also smuggle other, more expensive drugs like cocaine and methamphetamines but their bread and butter has always been marijuana.
4. It is true that local police departments make a lot of money under the RICO statutes from drug busts and their ability to keep a proportion of it. However, this money could easily be replaced by money collected in taxes from legalized marijuana, and let's be honest-- the RICO statutes have distorted law enforcement. I noticed a couple of years ago that there were far more police radar traps on the eastbound lanes of I-40 near where I live than in the westbound lanes. I asked a friend of mine who is a police officer why this is, and he told me that they are much more likely to make a drug bust from eastbound traffic, as it has become a major drug smuggling route, and of course with the statute that allows them to keep money from such busts there is a major financial incentive to watch the eastbound lanes more closely. The problem is that local (and clearly some out of state) drivers have noticed this too-- I drive on that highway every day and I see more speeders and reckless drivers going west than going east. So the drug war distorts the priorities of law enforcement, and this distortion is making life more dangerous for you and I even though I (and possibly you) don't use any drugs.
5. About that contention that legalizing it would make it harder for kids to get that I made at the end of the second paragraph:
I believe this is true, partly because kids have such an easy time getting it now but mainly because drug dealers don't care if you are 50 or 15 as long as you can pay, whereas circle K will check your ID if you try to buy tobacco or alcohol (they pay a substantial fine if they don't.) Drug dealers generally don't carry boxes of booze around with them, because adults would have no reason to buy it and it's still true that the majority of the drug dealer's clientele (especially those who can afford the more expensive or larger amounts of drugs) are adults. It's just not profitable for a drug dealer to charge a high price for something that most of the customers can get for less. The only ones who might have a difficult time with this are kids, but isn't our goal to discourage them from drinking (or smoking marijuana) anyway? A real eye opener was a study (and I wish I could find a link to it) that appeared in the Flagstaff Daily Sun about five years ago in which they found that more students in the Flagstaff school district reported having smoked marijuana in the past month than reported smoking tobacco. The reason why is pretty clear-- it's become easier for kids to get marijuana than cigarettes. So, if we made marijuana legal for adults then we could license it, regulate it and monitor sales in a way we can't do now.
Overall, prop 203 is far from a good law, and it's tempting to take a 'do no harm' kind position and vote against it in hope of getting a better law, but it's also still possible that I will vote for it because nothing is perfect and to vote to do nothing would be interpreted as a mandate to do nothing, and I do want to see reform get done.
As is so often the case in these types of debates, both sides had a point but then both also did not have a point.
Let me first clarify where I stand on the issue of marijuana. Like most Americans, I do not use marijuana. But also like many Americans (and at least one poll suggests a majority though most other polls disagree) I support making it legal for adults (no prescription required.)
That said, let me address the arguments on both sides of the question, beginning with those made by the speaker in favor of prop 203. The speaker pointed out that we have several times in the past voted in favor of marijuana for medical use with a prescription (a position that agrees with the views of an overwhelming majority of voters) but that without dispensaries this is a meaningless 'right' because there is no legal way to get it. Certainly that is a legitimate argument. All marijuana, before being used, must be produced. Then, unless the grower is also the sole user, it must be transported, and then sold to the eventual user. Of course all of these things, growing, transporting and selling marijuana are felony crimes. The idea of a dispensary is it gives a regulated but legal (at least according to the state) venue where transactions that would be illegal anyplace else can be conducted freely and without fear of the police (though there are still federal agents who technically could-- but very unlikely actually would-- show up and make arrests.) One immediate problem that has come up (and this is something the anti- guy said,) is that in many states a whole bunch of dispensaries are popping up and very few of the people who get marijuana are actually sick.
The question I have, then, is instead of dispensaries why not push for pharmacies to distribute marijuana? I know why they don't-- fear of a federal raid, but that is not a fear that can't be argued against given the low number of such raids.
However, if you really believe in legal access to medical marijuana (as I do) then why not push for such a prescription to be filled in a Pharmacy? Not only are pharmacists trained professionals who may even know about drug interactions and other side effects, but in fact it is reasonable to expect that you will be able to get any prescription filled at your pharmacy. For example, I use an inhaler for my asthma, but it would be ridiculous to get that prescription someplace that only sold inhalers. So why is medical marijuana any different? SELL IT AT THE PHARMACY!!!:
The second guy suggested not passing the bill for essentially two reasons. The first was that, as a physician, he's seen children and teens who have used marijuana and argues that their mental congition skills are lacking. As a result they do poorly in school. This is a good point, except that by making it he's acknowleging that the kids get it anyway. And it's true-- you can walk into any junior high school in America and probably learn who to talk to if you wanted to buy some pot. In fact, one could argue that legalizing it for adults would make marijuana more difficult for children to get (I will make that case further down.)
His second argument is that the system of dispensaries is being abused everywhere it is being tried (he had some statistics showing that only 2-3% of the people who use them have cancer, glaucoma or other conditions that are commonly cited as being treated by marijuana.) He talked about corruptible doctors who write prescriptions for 'pain' and make virtually their entire business off of writing prescriptions for marijuana. He then went on to say that this is a 'back-door path' to legalization. And you know what? He's right about that.
And that's why I may end up voting against this (haven't decided yet.) As a supporter of legalization I think those of us who believe that it should be legal shouldn't try to sneak in through the back door but should instead walk in through the front door. Clearly this is a debate that needs to be had, but let's as a society have a candid and forthright discussion about marijuana legalization, and not try to 'trick' anyone into voting for de-facto legalization. There are some very good arguments to be made for legalizing it. Let me lay a few of them out:
1. Marijuana is not any more hazardous to our health than is tobacco or alcohol. They are all bad for us, but we have as a society decided that in the absence of an imminent danger just by the fact of use, that people have the right to be stupid and use tobacco and alcohol, and it is hard to suggest that marijuana is any worse for you. In fact in some ways it is better (for example, it is possible to die from an overdose of alcohol or nicotine, and some people have, but you can't O.D. on marijuana.)
2. We now spend tens of millions of dollars in Arizona (and billions nationally) catching and prosecuting growers, shippers and venders of marijuana, and our prisons and courts are stuffed to capacity. In this time of strained state budgets around the country (certainly including Arizona) can we really afford to keep millions of people in prison for selling pot?
3. Legalizing it would be a body blow to the drug cartels, as they now make most of their money from growing, smuggling and selling hemp. True that they also smuggle other, more expensive drugs like cocaine and methamphetamines but their bread and butter has always been marijuana.
4. It is true that local police departments make a lot of money under the RICO statutes from drug busts and their ability to keep a proportion of it. However, this money could easily be replaced by money collected in taxes from legalized marijuana, and let's be honest-- the RICO statutes have distorted law enforcement. I noticed a couple of years ago that there were far more police radar traps on the eastbound lanes of I-40 near where I live than in the westbound lanes. I asked a friend of mine who is a police officer why this is, and he told me that they are much more likely to make a drug bust from eastbound traffic, as it has become a major drug smuggling route, and of course with the statute that allows them to keep money from such busts there is a major financial incentive to watch the eastbound lanes more closely. The problem is that local (and clearly some out of state) drivers have noticed this too-- I drive on that highway every day and I see more speeders and reckless drivers going west than going east. So the drug war distorts the priorities of law enforcement, and this distortion is making life more dangerous for you and I even though I (and possibly you) don't use any drugs.
5. About that contention that legalizing it would make it harder for kids to get that I made at the end of the second paragraph:
I believe this is true, partly because kids have such an easy time getting it now but mainly because drug dealers don't care if you are 50 or 15 as long as you can pay, whereas circle K will check your ID if you try to buy tobacco or alcohol (they pay a substantial fine if they don't.) Drug dealers generally don't carry boxes of booze around with them, because adults would have no reason to buy it and it's still true that the majority of the drug dealer's clientele (especially those who can afford the more expensive or larger amounts of drugs) are adults. It's just not profitable for a drug dealer to charge a high price for something that most of the customers can get for less. The only ones who might have a difficult time with this are kids, but isn't our goal to discourage them from drinking (or smoking marijuana) anyway? A real eye opener was a study (and I wish I could find a link to it) that appeared in the Flagstaff Daily Sun about five years ago in which they found that more students in the Flagstaff school district reported having smoked marijuana in the past month than reported smoking tobacco. The reason why is pretty clear-- it's become easier for kids to get marijuana than cigarettes. So, if we made marijuana legal for adults then we could license it, regulate it and monitor sales in a way we can't do now.
Overall, prop 203 is far from a good law, and it's tempting to take a 'do no harm' kind position and vote against it in hope of getting a better law, but it's also still possible that I will vote for it because nothing is perfect and to vote to do nothing would be interpreted as a mandate to do nothing, and I do want to see reform get done.
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
Something else Russell Pearce finds to be 'unconstitutional.' THE CONSTITUTION
Russell Pearce, the Arizona legislator who brought us Senate Bill 1070, tonight on Larry King said that the fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution is 'unconsitutional.'
Yes, you heard that right.
Of course the fourteenth amendment is PART of the Constitution, and got there only by going through the same mechanism set out in the Constitution to amend it; that is by passing both houses of Congress and then being ratified by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states.
So now the far right is claiming that the Constitution is 'unconstitutional.'
He's wandered off into the really deep grass on this one. What a moron!
Yes, you heard that right.
Of course the fourteenth amendment is PART of the Constitution, and got there only by going through the same mechanism set out in the Constitution to amend it; that is by passing both houses of Congress and then being ratified by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states.
So now the far right is claiming that the Constitution is 'unconstitutional.'
He's wandered off into the really deep grass on this one. What a moron!
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Most of Arizona SB 1070 blocked by Federal Judge
Judge Susan Bolton has issued a temporary injunction against key parts of Arizona Senate Bill SB 1070. Among the provisions that she blocked include requiring all immigrants (including legal immigrants) to carry papers with them at all times and the provision that would require police to consider the immigration status during routine police contacts.
This is good news but of course Governor Jan Brewer immediately announced plans to waste more of the state's money by appealing the decision to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court in San Francisco. Governor Brewer apparently has little confidence in that body, making clear she plans to continue to appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
And of course the Sheriff of Nottingham, Joe Arpaio, said that he will be running another immigrant sweep tomorrow whether the new law is in force or not.
One provision that was left intact allows any local bigot to challenge the police in court with a lawsuit if said local bigot believes that the police are not enforcing the provisions of SB 1070. Right now that doesn't mean much since there are few of the really odious provisions left intact, but not tossing this out could be a problem in the long run if some of the provisions are ever ruled back in play or if similar laws are passed with this provision.
Concerns for the future, but for today, this is a happy day.
This is good news but of course Governor Jan Brewer immediately announced plans to waste more of the state's money by appealing the decision to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court in San Francisco. Governor Brewer apparently has little confidence in that body, making clear she plans to continue to appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
And of course the Sheriff of Nottingham, Joe Arpaio, said that he will be running another immigrant sweep tomorrow whether the new law is in force or not.
One provision that was left intact allows any local bigot to challenge the police in court with a lawsuit if said local bigot believes that the police are not enforcing the provisions of SB 1070. Right now that doesn't mean much since there are few of the really odious provisions left intact, but not tossing this out could be a problem in the long run if some of the provisions are ever ruled back in play or if similar laws are passed with this provision.
Concerns for the future, but for today, this is a happy day.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Tea Party claims to not be racist by writing a racist letter and listening to a racist speaker
Suppose that someone accused you of doing something and you didn't think the accusation was fair. How would you respond?
Well, we know how the Tea Party responds. This past week the NAACP passed a resolution aimed at the Tea Party, specifically for not confronting racist comments, signs and other displays from within its ranks (for example, Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul suggesting that we go back to segregated lunch counters.)
So how does the Tea Party handle this? By the official spokesman of the Tea Party Express, Mark Williams, proving the NAACP's point by writing a hypothetical letter from the NAACP President to Abraham Lincoln, not only full of racist language but even telling him that he should not have ended slavery.
And then they follow that up by listening to a video from David Duke, the former Klan Imperial Wizard who a few years ago ran for Governor of Louisiana and then later for President.
This isn't how you prove you aren't racist!
I think, having listened to all the Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage and Sean Hannity I could stomach, that this is the result of the 'alternative media' coming to full fruition. They keep preaching about how the First Amendment guarantees the right to use 'politically incorrect speech' and they make a big deal out of doing it on air. So this kind of comes natural to them and their followers by now.
The issue of politically incorrect speech of course is NOT a first amendment issue. Nobody disputes that the first amendment gives you the legal right to call anyone any name you want to. You won't be prosecuted in a criminal court for it.
But that's not to say that you won't be held accountable for the consequences of your speech. Just as someone whose Constitutional right to free speech can be sued in civil court for slander or libel if they say or write falsehoods about people, so too if you insult someone using racist language you have to accept the consequence, which is that you will be judged a racist and an ignoramus for using it. You can't have it both ways. Go on all the racist rants you want, and listen to speeches by all the bigots you can find, but don't then be upset when someone calls you a racist. Because by your words and the associations you keep, so will you be judged.
Well, we know how the Tea Party responds. This past week the NAACP passed a resolution aimed at the Tea Party, specifically for not confronting racist comments, signs and other displays from within its ranks (for example, Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul suggesting that we go back to segregated lunch counters.)
So how does the Tea Party handle this? By the official spokesman of the Tea Party Express, Mark Williams, proving the NAACP's point by writing a hypothetical letter from the NAACP President to Abraham Lincoln, not only full of racist language but even telling him that he should not have ended slavery.
And then they follow that up by listening to a video from David Duke, the former Klan Imperial Wizard who a few years ago ran for Governor of Louisiana and then later for President.
This isn't how you prove you aren't racist!
I think, having listened to all the Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage and Sean Hannity I could stomach, that this is the result of the 'alternative media' coming to full fruition. They keep preaching about how the First Amendment guarantees the right to use 'politically incorrect speech' and they make a big deal out of doing it on air. So this kind of comes natural to them and their followers by now.
The issue of politically incorrect speech of course is NOT a first amendment issue. Nobody disputes that the first amendment gives you the legal right to call anyone any name you want to. You won't be prosecuted in a criminal court for it.
But that's not to say that you won't be held accountable for the consequences of your speech. Just as someone whose Constitutional right to free speech can be sued in civil court for slander or libel if they say or write falsehoods about people, so too if you insult someone using racist language you have to accept the consequence, which is that you will be judged a racist and an ignoramus for using it. You can't have it both ways. Go on all the racist rants you want, and listen to speeches by all the bigots you can find, but don't then be upset when someone calls you a racist. Because by your words and the associations you keep, so will you be judged.
Thursday, July 08, 2010
Reverse paternity? This is the kind of thing that gives lawyers a bad name
Lebron James is in the news tonight, after announcing that he will join re-signed star Dwyane Wade and free agent star Chris Bosch playing for the Miami Heat. James could have made more money staying in Cleveland, or playing in New York, New Jersey or Chicago but it seems as though the lure of having some teammates who can help him win a championship was just too good to pass up.
There is another story about Lebron in the news today too, and it's too bizarre to believe. A Washington D.C. lawyer is suing LeBron, claiming to be his father. No, I'm not making that up. The lawyer, Leicester Stovell, is claiming to have had sex one time with LeBron's mother, Gloria James, after meeting her in a bar in 1984 and that somehow that entitles him to $4 million.
Washington (CNN) -- A Washington lawyer has filed a lawsuit in federal court, claiming he is the father of basketball star LeBron James.
Leicester Stovell alleges that the athlete and his family have been involved in a cover-up to deny paternity by committing fraud and misrepresentation. He told HLN's "Prime News" on Thursday that he wants "a carefully structured and secure DNA test" to prove he's the NBA all-star's father.
Stovell says he has been trying for three years to establish paternity and is seeking $4 million in damages. An earlier test ruled out the possibility, but he said the test could have been tampered with -- "and there are indications that there was a motivation."
Oh, and just in case you figured the suit itself wasn't already a record for having an unmitigated case of chutzpah, consider he also, after allegedly learning that Gloria James was pregnant added this touching reminder:
Stovell said his only request was that the child, if a boy, play basketball.
Awww, how much this is pulling at the heartstrings....
Stovell then goes on:
He said his memory of the encounter resurfaced more than 20 years later, "after being asked whether I had a son, and I then systematically explored all of my past for that possibility."
I guess he'd have to say that to explain how come he never thought about it during the intervening twenty years. You know, the twenty years during which a kid growing up without a father might have found one worth having around. In fact, it appears that Mr. Stovell only thought about this once it became obvious that LeBron was going to be earning tens of millions of dollars.
Luckily, like any huckster, Stovell eventually gets crossed up by his own mouth:
He says he was informed by Gloria James months later that she was pregnant. He claims she told him the child would be named LeBron, similar to Leicester Bryce, Stovell's first and middle names.
What was that he had said earlier in the interview about him not thinking about whether he had a son for twenty years? He claims a woman he met at a bar and had sex with once, wanted to name her son after him, but then he went 20 years without thinking about whether he HAD a son?
Not only do I believe that the first DNA test was true and that Mr. Stovell is a first class huckster and charlatan, but even if he IS LeBron's dad, the HECK he deserves $4 million! He deserves exactly what he ever gave to his 'son.'
NOTHING!!!
There is another story about Lebron in the news today too, and it's too bizarre to believe. A Washington D.C. lawyer is suing LeBron, claiming to be his father. No, I'm not making that up. The lawyer, Leicester Stovell, is claiming to have had sex one time with LeBron's mother, Gloria James, after meeting her in a bar in 1984 and that somehow that entitles him to $4 million.
Washington (CNN) -- A Washington lawyer has filed a lawsuit in federal court, claiming he is the father of basketball star LeBron James.
Leicester Stovell alleges that the athlete and his family have been involved in a cover-up to deny paternity by committing fraud and misrepresentation. He told HLN's "Prime News" on Thursday that he wants "a carefully structured and secure DNA test" to prove he's the NBA all-star's father.
Stovell says he has been trying for three years to establish paternity and is seeking $4 million in damages. An earlier test ruled out the possibility, but he said the test could have been tampered with -- "and there are indications that there was a motivation."
Oh, and just in case you figured the suit itself wasn't already a record for having an unmitigated case of chutzpah, consider he also, after allegedly learning that Gloria James was pregnant added this touching reminder:
Stovell said his only request was that the child, if a boy, play basketball.
Awww, how much this is pulling at the heartstrings....
Stovell then goes on:
He said his memory of the encounter resurfaced more than 20 years later, "after being asked whether I had a son, and I then systematically explored all of my past for that possibility."
I guess he'd have to say that to explain how come he never thought about it during the intervening twenty years. You know, the twenty years during which a kid growing up without a father might have found one worth having around. In fact, it appears that Mr. Stovell only thought about this once it became obvious that LeBron was going to be earning tens of millions of dollars.
Luckily, like any huckster, Stovell eventually gets crossed up by his own mouth:
He says he was informed by Gloria James months later that she was pregnant. He claims she told him the child would be named LeBron, similar to Leicester Bryce, Stovell's first and middle names.
What was that he had said earlier in the interview about him not thinking about whether he had a son for twenty years? He claims a woman he met at a bar and had sex with once, wanted to name her son after him, but then he went 20 years without thinking about whether he HAD a son?
Not only do I believe that the first DNA test was true and that Mr. Stovell is a first class huckster and charlatan, but even if he IS LeBron's dad, the HECK he deserves $4 million! He deserves exactly what he ever gave to his 'son.'
NOTHING!!!
Monday, July 05, 2010
Five year blog anniversary
Five years of writing this blog.
And looking back at the first day of this blog I can see that five years ago, much has changed, but much has not. I put up three posts that day:
Welcome to the Institute of Deep Thinking
On Nuclear Proliferation and Iran
I'm proud of my country and I want to restore the image that I'm proud of
It was a different world then. George Bush was still pretty high in the polls, having won re-election the year before, and this was before Katrina exposed the ineffective cronies he'd put in charge of key agencies. The Iraq war was only two years old and the White House was still expressing optimism that victory was almost won. Afghanistan was on the backburner, an afterthought. There were almost daily threats of a new war against Iran. The economy wasn't great, but it wasn't bad and housing prices were going up at a dizzying rate.
Some of what I wrote then turned out to be too optimistic, but then I did make a statement then that turned out to be very accurate. From the second post five years ago:
In Iran today, over 60% of the population is under 30—people with no memory of the Shah and who took no part in the revolution but have instead come to resent the strictures of an Islamic society. As the years pass, this number will grow. The revolutionary rhetoric of Ayatollah Khomeini is as dead to them as the rhetoric of Lenin is to Russians. And like the Russians, Iran’s internationalist revolutionary fervor (where they actively tried to incite Islamic revolution in neighboring countries) seems to have passed with the aging of that generation, bled dry by the Iran-Iraq war. The mullahs have their hands full just maintaining internal control, and it is hard to see why they would start a nuclear war which would devastate their country and destroy what hold they still have....
Going back to the Soviet Union, it fell because of a policy of ‘constructive engagement.’ People saw our freedom, and wanted it for themselves. If anything, the survival of Cuba and North Korea, almost alone among old line anti-capitalist Marxist states (recall that China and Vietnam have had the foresight to develop private enterprise) is indicative that failure to engage the people of these nations strengthens the regime instead of undermining it. I pointed out in I-2 that Iran has a similar internal structure, where young people want change and the old line revolutionaries want to preserve the status quo. Engage the people who will be the future, and a future of freedom will arrive one day, and the people will earn it themselves, and treasure it all the more.
Obviously as we've seen in the past year that younger generation in Iran did want something else. Only our foreign policy wonks didn't expect that. Maybe I should have sent that post to the CIA.
And looking back at the first day of this blog I can see that five years ago, much has changed, but much has not. I put up three posts that day:
Welcome to the Institute of Deep Thinking
On Nuclear Proliferation and Iran
I'm proud of my country and I want to restore the image that I'm proud of
It was a different world then. George Bush was still pretty high in the polls, having won re-election the year before, and this was before Katrina exposed the ineffective cronies he'd put in charge of key agencies. The Iraq war was only two years old and the White House was still expressing optimism that victory was almost won. Afghanistan was on the backburner, an afterthought. There were almost daily threats of a new war against Iran. The economy wasn't great, but it wasn't bad and housing prices were going up at a dizzying rate.
Some of what I wrote then turned out to be too optimistic, but then I did make a statement then that turned out to be very accurate. From the second post five years ago:
In Iran today, over 60% of the population is under 30—people with no memory of the Shah and who took no part in the revolution but have instead come to resent the strictures of an Islamic society. As the years pass, this number will grow. The revolutionary rhetoric of Ayatollah Khomeini is as dead to them as the rhetoric of Lenin is to Russians. And like the Russians, Iran’s internationalist revolutionary fervor (where they actively tried to incite Islamic revolution in neighboring countries) seems to have passed with the aging of that generation, bled dry by the Iran-Iraq war. The mullahs have their hands full just maintaining internal control, and it is hard to see why they would start a nuclear war which would devastate their country and destroy what hold they still have....
Going back to the Soviet Union, it fell because of a policy of ‘constructive engagement.’ People saw our freedom, and wanted it for themselves. If anything, the survival of Cuba and North Korea, almost alone among old line anti-capitalist Marxist states (recall that China and Vietnam have had the foresight to develop private enterprise) is indicative that failure to engage the people of these nations strengthens the regime instead of undermining it. I pointed out in I-2 that Iran has a similar internal structure, where young people want change and the old line revolutionaries want to preserve the status quo. Engage the people who will be the future, and a future of freedom will arrive one day, and the people will earn it themselves, and treasure it all the more.
Obviously as we've seen in the past year that younger generation in Iran did want something else. Only our foreign policy wonks didn't expect that. Maybe I should have sent that post to the CIA.
Sunday, July 04, 2010
Borne aloft by words and dreams. Words to die for, that a dream might come true.
234 years ago this very day, modern hyperspectral imaging technology has verified that Thomas Jefferson crossed out a word in an early draft of the Declaration of Independence and replaced it with a different word. The word he crossed out was, 'subjects' and he replaced it with 'citizens.'
And so a revolution was born. Americans were not merely British subjects of the Crown who wanted King George to pay attention to a list of grievances, but instead were ready to leave that union, for better or worse, and strike out into the world on our own.
And the first challenge was to defeat King George's army. After nine long, bloody years (measured from the battles of Lexington and Concord on April 18-19, 1774) to the final treaty ending the war in 1783, freedom was won and independence was assured.
As Americans we often disagree about many things. I welcome conservatives to challenge me on this blog, not because I will often agree with them, but rather because I love living in a country where I can write this blog, they can comment on it, and we are both protected by the same Constitution. We can go back to the partisan battles tomorrow, but for today I am glad to be part of a great nation along with more than 300 other people.
And so a revolution was born. Americans were not merely British subjects of the Crown who wanted King George to pay attention to a list of grievances, but instead were ready to leave that union, for better or worse, and strike out into the world on our own.
And the first challenge was to defeat King George's army. After nine long, bloody years (measured from the battles of Lexington and Concord on April 18-19, 1774) to the final treaty ending the war in 1783, freedom was won and independence was assured.
As Americans we often disagree about many things. I welcome conservatives to challenge me on this blog, not because I will often agree with them, but rather because I love living in a country where I can write this blog, they can comment on it, and we are both protected by the same Constitution. We can go back to the partisan battles tomorrow, but for today I am glad to be part of a great nation along with more than 300 other people.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Is BP allowing the leak to continue to protect profits?
What do former President Bill Clinton and Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Georgia) have in common?
Both Clinton and Gingrey are now on record as suggesting that the navy should take over the operation from BP and blow up the well.
The basic idea seems to be that they could drill one or more shafts parallel to the well shaft and about ten feet away and then fill them with high explosive which when detonated would collapse the actual well shaft inward, sealing itself. These parallel shafts would be only about ten feet deep (in contrast to the 10,000 feet that the relief well is being drilled into the rock as we speak.)
I HOPE the reason this was not done is because whatever Clinton and Gingrey may have said, there are technical problems that make it as daunting or as risky as the methods that have been tried (which is possible, because politicians sometimes have been known to make suggestions about things they really don't understand very well.)
However, a disturbing couple of lines pops up if you read today's article (the one on Clinton endorsing the plan.)
There has been some pressure for BP to simply blow up the well, with critics suggesting the company is forgoing that option out of a desire to get as much oil as possible from the rig.
"If we demolish the well using explosives, the investment's gone," former nuclear submarine officer and a visiting scholar on nuclear policy at Columbia University Christopher Brownfield said in a Fox News interview in May. "They lose hundreds of millions of dollars from the drilling of the well, plus no lawmaker in his right mind would allow BP to drill again in that same spot. So basically, it's an all-or-nothing thing with BP: They either keep the well alive, or they lose their whole investment and all the oil that they could potentially get from that well."
IF that is the reason why this has not been done but in fact explosives could have sealed this well much earlier then we should all be disturbed. Disturbed and outraged. I've assumed that the reason BP hasn't yet stopped the leak is because they tried and failed. But if they could have stopped it and instead failed to do so intentionally purely for the purpose of protecting their 'investment' (at whatever cost to those onshore) then that decision would qualify as a crime and they should be made to pay for it.
Both Clinton and Gingrey are now on record as suggesting that the navy should take over the operation from BP and blow up the well.
The basic idea seems to be that they could drill one or more shafts parallel to the well shaft and about ten feet away and then fill them with high explosive which when detonated would collapse the actual well shaft inward, sealing itself. These parallel shafts would be only about ten feet deep (in contrast to the 10,000 feet that the relief well is being drilled into the rock as we speak.)
I HOPE the reason this was not done is because whatever Clinton and Gingrey may have said, there are technical problems that make it as daunting or as risky as the methods that have been tried (which is possible, because politicians sometimes have been known to make suggestions about things they really don't understand very well.)
However, a disturbing couple of lines pops up if you read today's article (the one on Clinton endorsing the plan.)
There has been some pressure for BP to simply blow up the well, with critics suggesting the company is forgoing that option out of a desire to get as much oil as possible from the rig.
"If we demolish the well using explosives, the investment's gone," former nuclear submarine officer and a visiting scholar on nuclear policy at Columbia University Christopher Brownfield said in a Fox News interview in May. "They lose hundreds of millions of dollars from the drilling of the well, plus no lawmaker in his right mind would allow BP to drill again in that same spot. So basically, it's an all-or-nothing thing with BP: They either keep the well alive, or they lose their whole investment and all the oil that they could potentially get from that well."
IF that is the reason why this has not been done but in fact explosives could have sealed this well much earlier then we should all be disturbed. Disturbed and outraged. I've assumed that the reason BP hasn't yet stopped the leak is because they tried and failed. But if they could have stopped it and instead failed to do so intentionally purely for the purpose of protecting their 'investment' (at whatever cost to those onshore) then that decision would qualify as a crime and they should be made to pay for it.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Right wing waits until the decision has been made to decide which side they are on.
Before President Obama tipped his hand about whether he would retain or fire General McChrystal over comments he and staff working for him made in a Rolling Stones article, very few pundits or media on the right tipped theirs either. Among those who did, there was no clear consensus, and there were plenty of articles that said Obama should fire McChrystal (such as this editorial by conservative icon William Kristol which not only advises Obama to fire McChrystal, but that he should call on David Petraeus to replace him.) I doubt if Kristol will write a follow up editorial praising Obama for doing exactly the way he suggested though.
It is true that the most offensive remarks disparaging both the commander-in-chief and the Vice President) were made by McChrystal's staff, not McChrystal. But a commander is responsible for the attention to duty and following the law of all those under their command. McChrystal understands that.
At least Kristol was willing to say what he thought. Not so many other pundits on the right, including not only a lot of conservative journalists but the mavens of talk radio. Of course the decision was made before most of them were on the air today, but it was amazing how in unison they suddenly all sounded off immediately after the decision was made. It was as if keeping McChrystal was the obvious choice all along and their stated bewilderment at Obama for firing him was chalked up to everything from ego to a secret desire on Obama's part that America lose in Afghanistan to help foment discontent at home.
Now, you can be sure that if the decision had come down to retain McChrystal, then all of the very same right wing reporters, bloggers and talk show hosts would have said that was a terrible decision and showed that Obama was weak and indecisive. They would have still brought up the charge that Obama had an agenda to not win in Afghanistan, just in that case it would have been 'by making sure the soldiers see him as an ineffective C-in-C.'
If you listened to anyone's monologue bashing this decision then you can imagine how they would have sounded bashing the opposite decision.
Because they had that speech already written as well.
It is true that the most offensive remarks disparaging both the commander-in-chief and the Vice President) were made by McChrystal's staff, not McChrystal. But a commander is responsible for the attention to duty and following the law of all those under their command. McChrystal understands that.
At least Kristol was willing to say what he thought. Not so many other pundits on the right, including not only a lot of conservative journalists but the mavens of talk radio. Of course the decision was made before most of them were on the air today, but it was amazing how in unison they suddenly all sounded off immediately after the decision was made. It was as if keeping McChrystal was the obvious choice all along and their stated bewilderment at Obama for firing him was chalked up to everything from ego to a secret desire on Obama's part that America lose in Afghanistan to help foment discontent at home.
Now, you can be sure that if the decision had come down to retain McChrystal, then all of the very same right wing reporters, bloggers and talk show hosts would have said that was a terrible decision and showed that Obama was weak and indecisive. They would have still brought up the charge that Obama had an agenda to not win in Afghanistan, just in that case it would have been 'by making sure the soldiers see him as an ineffective C-in-C.'
If you listened to anyone's monologue bashing this decision then you can imagine how they would have sounded bashing the opposite decision.
Because they had that speech already written as well.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Jan Brewer's phony outrage
The local news is full of Jan Brewer's faux outrage at the Obama administration for daring to challenge the new immigration law, especially the part about Hillary Clinton apparently first spilling the beans during a trip to Ecuador.
This may play well with the Republican base that Brewer is trying to hang onto as she heads into a competitive primary contest but hardly anyone who knows politics is fooled by this. As evidence, just last week Brewer got into a fight with Terry Goddard, who would have to defend the law in his capacity as Attorney General over precisely this matter. So for her to now claim that she is surprised is the height of hypocrisy. Goddard for his part (and keeping in mind that if Brewer survives her primary she would be running against Goddard in the fall) did voluntarily step aside today (giving Brewer what she demanded from him last week) and wisely isn't going to be defending this law.
The immigration bill was certain to be challenged in court from the moment it was signed, not only because it places the state in the position of the Federal Government, but also because one can seriously question the constitutionality of requiring that all citizens (because it is not only non-citizens who will be questioned) carry identification with them in order to avoid possibly being detained as a 'suspected undocumented' immigrant. This seems contrary to the fourth amendment protection against unreasonable searches.
True that if you are driving a vehicle you need a drivers license with you but that is only while you are driving. If you are not driving a vehicle (such as if you are walking down the street, standing on the corner or only a passenger in a vehicle) there is no current requirement for I.D. but the Arizona law in fact if not in letter does now require I.D. (certainly for anyone-- read that Hispanics or people who may be mistaken for Hispanics such as American Indians-- who may be 'suspected' of being an undocumented immigrant.)
Brewer knew very well that this law would certainly be challenged in court, and virtually certainly by the Justice Department, so her expressions of shock are purely contrived. As to the matter of Secretary Clinton first disclosing this in Ecuador, it may have been a slip of the tongue, or it may have been intentional. Either way, official notification will follow when the Justice Department is ready to file their suit. Likely as not they are carefully wording their official court briefs in order to comply with all necessary legal requirements, whereas the Secretary of State, as she is not the one who will be filing the suit, is under no obligation to wait for them to file the official suit.
If she wanted to avoid a lawsuit there was an easy way to do that-- veto the law last month. But Governor Brewer made it clear which side she is on. Fine, but then don't turn around and claim to be shocked and surprised when the inevitable consequences roll around.
This may play well with the Republican base that Brewer is trying to hang onto as she heads into a competitive primary contest but hardly anyone who knows politics is fooled by this. As evidence, just last week Brewer got into a fight with Terry Goddard, who would have to defend the law in his capacity as Attorney General over precisely this matter. So for her to now claim that she is surprised is the height of hypocrisy. Goddard for his part (and keeping in mind that if Brewer survives her primary she would be running against Goddard in the fall) did voluntarily step aside today (giving Brewer what she demanded from him last week) and wisely isn't going to be defending this law.
The immigration bill was certain to be challenged in court from the moment it was signed, not only because it places the state in the position of the Federal Government, but also because one can seriously question the constitutionality of requiring that all citizens (because it is not only non-citizens who will be questioned) carry identification with them in order to avoid possibly being detained as a 'suspected undocumented' immigrant. This seems contrary to the fourth amendment protection against unreasonable searches.
True that if you are driving a vehicle you need a drivers license with you but that is only while you are driving. If you are not driving a vehicle (such as if you are walking down the street, standing on the corner or only a passenger in a vehicle) there is no current requirement for I.D. but the Arizona law in fact if not in letter does now require I.D. (certainly for anyone-- read that Hispanics or people who may be mistaken for Hispanics such as American Indians-- who may be 'suspected' of being an undocumented immigrant.)
Brewer knew very well that this law would certainly be challenged in court, and virtually certainly by the Justice Department, so her expressions of shock are purely contrived. As to the matter of Secretary Clinton first disclosing this in Ecuador, it may have been a slip of the tongue, or it may have been intentional. Either way, official notification will follow when the Justice Department is ready to file their suit. Likely as not they are carefully wording their official court briefs in order to comply with all necessary legal requirements, whereas the Secretary of State, as she is not the one who will be filing the suit, is under no obligation to wait for them to file the official suit.
If she wanted to avoid a lawsuit there was an easy way to do that-- veto the law last month. But Governor Brewer made it clear which side she is on. Fine, but then don't turn around and claim to be shocked and surprised when the inevitable consequences roll around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
