Coolidge overturns its policy of "Christian-only" invocations

Disappointing litigious Constitutional law attorneys all over the country, the Coolidge City Council pulled its collective head out of its collective ass on Monday night.

From the Casa Grande Dispatch, written by Joey Chenoweth -

Following a week of backlash that captured the attention of people around the country, the Coolidge City Council in a special meeting Monday night voted to deny an amended resolution that would have allowed only Christians to pray before its meetings.

Council members first held a 35-minute executive session where they were able to receive legal counsel outside of the public eye. When they came back, they quickly went through the two items on the regular agenda, unanimously denying the Christian-only amendment, then allowing prayer from all faiths to start its meetings.

Just speculatin' now, ya unnerstand, but I betcha that part of the conversation during the executive session was the City of Coolidge's attorney advising the City of Coolidge's elected leaders that cranio-rectal dislodgement surgery isn't covered under the City of Coolidge's health insurance and that they would have to remedy things before more costly measures were required... 

Note: the member of the Coolidge City Council, Rob Hudelson, posted some triumphant messages to Facebook and Twitter in the aftermath of the original vote; he has been silent (in those places, anyway) since the second vote.

AZCrazy: They start 'em young here...or at least, before they get to the legislature...

Note: "young" refers to political age, not chronological age

...I'd speculate about something being in the water, but there isn't enough water here...

Most of the national (and international) ridicule directed at Arizona politics in recent years has been rooted in some of the actions of the state legislature or other denizens of the capitol district, but there is a "grass roots" brand of unprofessionalism that permeates certain local and special district governing boards.

Given that many of those boards serve as political feeder routes to the lege, it isn't actually much of a surprise that the Arizona Legislature is so dysfunctional - certain members of these boards have made their "whackjob" bones before moving up the political ladder.

In recent years we've seen...

...(late 2000s) the governing board of the Maricopa County Community College District (MCCCD) devolve into a "hostile work environment" (and that's putting things mildly) because of a single member, Jerry Walker.

Walker later was a candidate for the legislature and a local school board, coming up short even in years when any other R with a pulse won their races.

...(turn of the decade) seemingly the entire town council and police department in Quartzsite go off the rails (here, here, and here, among many choices)...

...(early 2010s) the school board in charge of the Gilbert public school system taken over by some tea party types and the hijinks ensuing almost immediately...

...(this month, September 2015) the city council in Coolidge approve a policy of "Christian-only" invocations for council meetings.

The council member behind the controversial move, Rob Hudelson, is a public servant in the same way that the infamous Kim Davis is a "public servant" - he seems to want to serve up the public interest on the altar of his personal religious dogma.

His personal blog is here; don you hip boots before reading - he piles it high and deep there, and quickly.

He also has the habit of conflating his personal preferences with the will of his constituents.  To whit, from his Twitter page:

Speculation time:

Regardless of how the "Christian-only" invocations controversy plays out, this won't be the last time we hear about Mr. Hudelson.

Arizona lege 2014: Puttin' the "AZ" in "crazy". Again.

Maybe it's time to move the Arizona State Hospital six (or so) miles to the west, and a little south...

Still sticking by the prediction that this year's session of the Arizona legislature will be a short one, but I now expect them to pack a lot of punch line-worthy material into the session.

We've already had one sitting state senator, Don Shooter, baldly announce that he intends to keep taking bribes "gifts" of tickets to sporting events from lobbyists until he receives a pay raise.

Another one is fast-tracking a bill to make discrimination that can be rationalized by citing a religious justification a protected civil right...for the bigots.


And that's just the beginning.

Some of the other "colorful" measures that fall into the "making comedy writers' lives easier" category (some are new, some are rehashes of schemes proposed in earlier sessions of the lege):

- HB2466, mandating that every session of the legislature adjourn by May 1st every year, regardless of whether they have actually completed their work (ya know, pass a budget).

- HB2433, making it a class 2 misdemeanor (up to four months in jail, $750 fine) if a delegate to a Constitutional convention even considers an "unapproved" amendment.

- HB2412, creating a "school safety designee program" - simply put, "guns on campus" by another name.

- HB2366, appropriating funds to pay current and former legislators (read: Russell Pearce) involved in lawsuits stemming from the infamous anti-immigrant measure known as SB1070.

- HB2344, creating a new way for candidates for US Senate to get their names on the general election ballot - have the legislature nominate them.

- HB2339, allowing firearms nearly *everywhere*.

- HB2284, allowing license "inspections" of abortion providers at any time for any reason, even if (especially if?) such inspections disrupt operations.

- HB2196, repealing 2013's HB2305 and its host of voter suppression provisions.  Not because the Rs in the AZ lege have suddenly been struck by a fit of conscience.  Nope, because HB2305 was successfully referred to the ballot by a petition drive and they figure that repealing it will invalidate the ballot referral.  Once that happens, they will just pass the measure again.

- HB2192, Rep. Carl Seel's latest "Breathing While Brown" law, making it a Class 1 misdemeanor (first offense) or Class 6 felony (subsequent offense) for an undocumented immigrant to use any "public resource".  And under Seel's definition, using a public resource specifically and literally "includes driving on a public road or highway, accepting any public benefit, attending a public school or using the services of any public entity in this state."

This particular proposal is the frontrunner in the "Most Likely To Earn AZ A Prime Spot On The Daily Show.  Again." derby.

- HB2186, turning Arizona's college campuses into armed encampments (allowing school faculty members to carry concealed weapons).

- HB2030, mandating that applicants for and recipients of unemployment compensation pass a drug test as a condition for receiving benefits.

- SB1120, barring hospitals from requiring physicians to treat Medicare and Medicaid patients as a condition for granting staff privileges to those physicians.

- SB1096, a "gold and precious metals as money" bill.


The above bills were submitted by the end of the first week of the session of the lege; they still have 2 - 3 weeks (depending on the chamber) to submit more, and "strike-everything" amendments (aka "strikers") can be submitted at nearly any time.


How about we slap a fence around the state capitol and rename it "The Ev Mecham Memorial Insane Asylum"?

Santa's gonna need body armor when he visits the homes of Valley Republicans this year...

Normally, I'm not one to give free publicity to a GOP fundraising effort, but this one is way too juicy to accord a free pass...

As the calendar closes in on the end of the year, many groups are looking to do one last major fundraising effort before the election season fully ramps up.  While there is always pressure to raise funds felt by political groups, the ideal is to have most of the money needed to pay for outreach/campaigns raised early, because as election day gets closer, campaigns prefer to focus on spending, not raising, money.

Occasionally, that leads to some "colorful" fundraising efforts.

Like this one, from the Legislative District 26 Republican Party, based in Tempe and Mesa here in Arizona -

We are approaching Christmas (December 25), a time supposedly about sharing peace and love, and the one-year anniversary of the mass murder of 26 students and teachers in Newtown, CT (December 14), and the LD26 Rs want to make money off "sharing" a weapon similar to the one used by the killer in Newtown.

Take note of the delicious bit of insanity in the way that they are conducting background checks on potential recipients of the assault rifle that they are raffling off.

Hint: it's the kind of "background check" that even someone like Jared Loughner could pass.

I know that I'm a Democrat and we are talking about Republicans here and we don't agree on much of anything, but at what level of raging misanthropic insanity is this appropriate?

Maybe they're trying to appeal to the "let's stock up on reindeer meat so we can save our money to buy more meth" crowd?

To be fair to the LD26 Rs, this may not be a holiday fundraiser for them.  There's no date listed for the drawing, which may mean that this is a "forever" raffle where they are going to keep this going until they stop making money from it.

Something that would be worthy of a post of its own...and possibly a fraud indictment.

PS - If Santa decides to brave the skies over AZ, perhaps he should see if State Rep. Bob Thorpe can hook him up with some state-of-the-art gear.  Thorpe "knows" some people...


Picking nits part of the program:

Whoever runs/maintains their website needs to learn to spell, or at least how to use spell check -

The verdict in the killing of Trayvon Martin: Some people doubling down, AZ Edition

After Saturday night's acquittal of George Zimmerman on charges stemming from his killing of Trayvon Martin, reaction was swift across the country, including in Arizona.

State Sen. Steve Gallardo tweeted this in the aftermath of the announcement of the verdict -

And this -

Or former State Sen. David Schapira -

Sadly, other Arizona "leaders" aren't quite as thoughtful.

State Sen. Kelli Ward -

To Sen. Ward:  First, it was a "killing", not an "incident".  Second, truly, not every incident (read "conflict" in this context) between people of different races is a civil rights violation.  Two people arguing over a single parking spot at the local mall, perhaps accompanied by raised voices, mutual flipping of birds, and hurt feelings is probably not a civil rights violation.

The stalking and execution of an unarmed black teen by a white man, the tanking of the investigation and prosecution by white-dominated law enforcement agencies and an acquittal by a mostly (all?) white jury?  Probably a civil rights violation or two here (file this under "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...").

Or State Rep. Kelly Townsend, putting a partisan political spin on things -

To Rep. Townsend:  I don't know Mr. Zimmerman's ethnic background or political leanings, but even accepting your statement as fact, the response is the same - "So what?".

I don't know every Democrat or Hispanic in the state or country, but I can state unequivocally that none of the Democrats, Hispanics, or Hispanic Democrats that I know feel that partisan affiliation or ethnic background confers an immunity from responsibility for violent acts.

Unlike, say, someone we both know (but I'm guessing that you know him better than I do).

Note to readers: Townsend got into a bit of a Twitter discussion with Steve Muratore, publisher of the Arizona Eagletarian.  I don't think she helped her cause with her follow ups, not at all, but you be the judge -

Some of the pearls of wisdom were indirect, repostings of something others wrote and promulgated by AZ types.

For instance, Rep. David Livingston retweeted this one -

It seems that Rep. Livingston believes that it is unprofessional behavior for prosecutors to look into killings of unarmed teens.  As opposed to what the rest of society believes.  You know, that it is part of prosecutors' jobs.

It's not just the electeds, either.

For instance, Constantin Querard, noted political hatchet-man "consultant" here in AZ offered up this gem -

Actually, "not guilty" means "the prosecution didn't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt".  Nothing less, nothing more.

Or Shane Wikfors, another noted political hatchet-man "consultant" here in AZ, serving up this retweet -

Don't know if he's trying to continue the stereotyping and smearing of Martin (falsely equating Martin's killing to being equivalent to "just another gang-related killing" and hence not something to worry about), criticizing liberals for not "fixing" every social problem, saying Martin's killing is OK because other black teens have died, or if he's maybe multitasking (don't want to insult Wikfors by implying that he can spew only one line of BS at a time).

Any way you cut it though, from Ward's ignorance through to Wikfors' stereotyping, it's despicable.

It may be time for the Capitol Police to start searching legislators for crack pipes...

...'cuz some of them seem to be killing off their brain cells at an alarming rate...

On Tuesday, the House gave its approval, by an almost-completely party-line vote, to SCR1016.

That SCR places a proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution on the ballot in 2014.  If passed by the voters, it would add a clause to that document stating that Arizona could "nullify", or ignore, any federal action, law or rule.  AZBlueMeanie at Blog for Arizona has a great rundown of that here.

This post is merely about a little over 40 seconds of the House debate on the measure, specifically Rep. Steve Smith's "explanation" of his vote.  He used his "explanation" of his vote to respond to the previous speaker, Democratic Rep. Albert Hale, the only Democrat to vote in favor of the measure.  Hale felt that such a measure would prevent the federal government from taking land and sovereignty from Native peoples and nations.

Note: There's no actual debate during final votes on measures at the lege, just legislators "explaining" their votes.  Some of the explanations get a little long-winded and even bombastic.  Smith was neither long-winded nor bombastic, but after watching his quiet certitude on the historical rightness of unbridled imperialism, I considered adding a third descriptor to the previous sentence - "drug-addled".  However, lacking the results of an independently administered and analyzed drug test, I chose not to go there.



The text of his "explanation" (emphasis added) -

Mr. Speaker, I think just since we're talking a little bit about history, I think it would be fair to point out that history of virtually every nation on the earth has come about from one people taking from another.  Going back to biblical times.  If we stand on this argument, then God's people never should have occupied God's land. 'Cause they took it from people, too.  I guess I wanted to say that some people look at the United States as a taking nation.  I look at it as the most benevolent and the most giving nation, certainly in our time and frankly, ever.  I vote yes.

The scariest part isn't that he said what he said.  It was in how he said it, with the same matter-of-fact tone that former legislator Sylvia Allen proclaimed that strip mining uranium was OK because the Earth was 6000 years old and doing just fine.

Q: When is anti-science education legislation not anti-science? A: When the Republican anti-science authors of the bill say it isn't. Just trust them.

The latest evidence that the Republican crazy engine in the AZ lege is warmed up and hitting on all cylinders just two weeks into the new session:

SB1213, relating to "schools; science instruction; requirements".

When I saw that subject on the lege's website, my first thought was "oh shit - what are they up to now?".  I calmed down long enough to realize that I was getting ahead of myself and should look at the bill's content before thinking the badly about the measure.

So I read the bill, and came to the conclusion that my deepest fears about the bill were wrong.

The fears weren't unfounded, however.  Not hardly.

They were far milder than the reality of the proposal.

The text of the bill (emphasis mine):

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona: Section 1. Title 15, chapter 7, article 1, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 15-706.01, to read: START_STATUTE15-706.01. Science instruction; requirements A. The state board of education, the department of education, county school superintendents, school district governing boards, school district superintendents, school principals and school administrators shall endeavor to: 1. Create an environment in schools that encourages pupils to explore scientific questions, learn  about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues. 2. Assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies. Teachers shall be allowed to help pupils understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught. B. The state board of education, the department of education, county school superintendents, school district governing boards, school district superintendents, school principals and school administrators shall not prohibit any teacher in this state from helping pupils understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught. C. This section protects only the teaching of scientific information and does not promote any religious or nonreligious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion. END_STATUTE Sec. 2. Intent The legislature finds and declares that: 1. An important purpose of science education is to inform students about scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills necessary to becoming intelligent, productive and scientifically informed citizens. 2. The teaching of some scientific subjects, including biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming and human cloning, can cause controversy. 3. Some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on such subjects.
Notwithstanding paragraph C above, this bill looks an awful lot like an attempt to force religious doctrine into Arizona's science classrooms, under the guise of "teaching all sides of controversial issues" (or somesuch BS) while blithely ignoring the fact that much of the "controversy" isn't scientifically-based.  While paragraph C purports to state that the bill isn't about religious indoctrination, that paragraph is more than belied by part 2 of the intent clause in the bill.   The legislators who've signed on to this nuggest of crazy are state senators one and all - Judy "Birther" Burges, Chester "Sylvia Allen's hand-picked successor" Crandell, Rick "I don't know enough him to mock him.  Yet." Murphy, Steve "Shoring Up His Right Flank In Preparation For A Run For Governor Next Year" Pierce, Don "Tequila" Shooter, and Steve "Raking It In Hand Over Fist" Yarbrough.   Because of this bill, and the others like it that are in the pipeline, a new post category has been created -  Putting the AZ in crAZy.