John Washington, candidate for Mayor of Scottsdale

A third candidate has responded to my invitation to submit a statement regarding his candidacy.

Today, it's the statement of neighborhood activist and write-in candidate for mayor, John Washington.

From his email -

Craig,

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to your readers.

You can read muchmore extensive information about my positions and the elections atwww.ScottsdaleCitizen.com.

You asked that I tell you why I am the best choice for Scottsdale. I have to say emphatically that I am NOT. However, we couldn't get anyone better to run for Mayor!

There is not enough interest among better-qualified potential candidates. Elected office in this City pays poorly, requires a lot of work, and has very little dedicated staff support. I have advanced several proposals to fix all that.

Disinterest among real citizens leaves us career politicians and those who want to be. I, on the other hand, am no politician at all. I'm a citizen who has been frustrated at every attempt at positive input into the public process. We've seen public process and public policy hijacked for the benefit of the wealthy. We are selling the soul of our community -- the legacy we should be leaving to our children -- to developers.

Frustrated citizens are expressing their outrage, and folks who normally don't follow the process closely are getting engaged. The more this happens, the more the citizens are greeted with arrogance. This must stop. We MUST restore TRUST between the citizens and their government.

My primary objective is reinvigorating citizen involvement and maintaining it through openness, receptiveness, and honesty. I intend to initiate a conversation about community identity and the necessity of civic character to our quality of life. Only then can we address the many individual issues that face us, including financial health in the context of a struggling national economy.

Many of these issues are directly related. Growth, height, and density must be balanced against quality of life and civic character. Since civic character is directly related to tourism, revenue from development fees reduces revenue from tourism.

Hidden costs of development must be considered honestly and accurately. Development strains infrastructure like water, sewer, power, and roadways. It also dilutes public safety services like fire and police protection.

Only the citizens can best say how we balance growth against character. Other stakeholders should remain part of the process, but it is job of the Mayor and Council to make sure special interests do not dominate the processfor their own benefit, at the expense of our future.

We should respect the process, but we must also recognize when it is failing us. At that point, the Mayor and Council have responsibility to step in and fix the process.

It is clear to anyone who pays attention even a little that we are at such a point. Never in my history in Scottsdale have I seen such City-wide turmoil and citizen outrage. We need leadership to improve dialog through positive outreach and engagement, not by squashing it with arrogance and ridicule.

I want to lead that change.

John Washington
www.ScottsdaleCitizen.com
480.229.1831
john@reactionresearch.com

Have a good night...

The John Sydney McCain Memorial Crappie Award

It's time for another tribute to political flip-floppery.

The competition for this week's edition of this dubious yet apparently highly-coveted honor (well, there always seems to be many contenders for the Award, so they must covet it, right?) was fierce. Two old pros and one relative rookie fought tooth and fin over this week's award like it was a minnow on a hook.

First, let's be clear up front - if the award hadn't already been named after McCain, he would have won the award going away for first criticizing Barack Obama for not having visited Iraq (May 2008) but then criticizing Obama for this month's visit to Iraq and Afghanistan (June 2008).

As if that wasn't enough, in his latest campaign ad, McCain also criticized Senator Obama for not holding hearings on Afghanistan in the Senate subcommittee that he chairs (European Affairs Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee) while blithely ignoring the fact that McCain, the ranking Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, hasn't attended any of his own committee's hearings on the same subject.

However hard he strove for the award though, out of fairness to the legion of other contenders, he has been retired from consideration.


Also in the running was John Shadegg, who, in a shamelessly cynical election-year ploy, voted to override the President's veto of a Medicare bill that he originally voted against anyway. However, I already wrote about that move, so I won't add to his embarrassment by awarding him another Crappie.

Have no fear though - he's got plenty of time between now and when he loses his job in November to Bob Lord to earn many more Crappies.


This week's winner is a first-timer, Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas.


The AZ Republic broke a story about how a Thomas staffer at the County Attorney's office, paralegal Phillip Quihuis, is one of the leaders of a group seeking to force a recall election of Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, a political adversary of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Thomas' political mentor.

When asked about Quihuis' convenient (for Thomas) side project, Thomas didn't criticize or question it, he simply stated "I'm not involved in it. He has constitutional rights. "

Yes, this Andrew Thomas who is so concerned with civil liberties and constitutional rights is the same one who ordered an investigation into the Phoenix New Times. critics of he and Arpaio, an investigation that led to the false arrests of two of the New Times founders.

For this back one-and-a-half twisting tuck of a flip-flop (lackeys have Constitutional rights, journalists don't), Andrew Thomas is the winner of this week's John Sydney McCain Memorial Crappie Award.

This may be Thomas's first Crappie, but like Shadegg, he has plenty of time to win more before losing his position to either Gerald Richard or Tim Nelson.


Later today, travel over to Nevada's Desert Beacon for her latest edition of the always entertaining, informative, and pointed Sunday Deck Bass Award. And if you're feeling really adventurous and want to take a road trip that won't burn up any of that $4.00+ gas that is the Bush Administration's legacy to the American people, journey up to Minnesota's Extemperaneous Discourse to see if a rare but tasty Sunday Eel Pout Award is on the menu.

Have a good weekend!

Hope I beat Tedski to this one...

I never seem to beat him on political tidbits, but maybe I can on this gratuitous soccer reference... :))

From AP via the San Francisco Chronicle -

An American Airlines flight from Boston to Los Angeles was diverted to Oklahoma City on Friday after a passenger stripped, put his clothes back on and then tried to open an emergency exit door before being subdued by members of a pro soccer team and others, the FBI said.

{snip}

Members of the New England Revolution of Major League Soccer were among those who grabbed the passenger near an exit door, Johnson said.

The Revs have travelled well all season - they're the best road team in MLS. :)

Later!

Candidate Forum For Scottsdale Mayoral And Council Candidates

Back to boring (i.e. - content that's only relevent locally)...

Thursday evening, all three of Scottsdale's mayoral candidates (incumbent Mary Manross and challengers Jim Lane and John Washington) and 7 of the candidates for Scottsdale City Council (incumbents Betty Drake and Ron McCullagh and challengers Nan Nesvig, Tom Giller, Lisa Borowsky, Joel Bramoweth, and Suzanne Klapp) gathered for the candidate forum sponsored by the Coalition of Pinnacle Peak (COPP).

None of the candidates did a bad job there, though the one who didn't participate, council candidate Oren Davis, didn't do his candidacy any favors by not showing up.

While there were some differences in their positions, all of the candidates showed a grasp of the main issues facing Scottsdale.

Their positions, shown by their responses to a COPP candidate survey, can be found on this page.

Impressions -

Of the candidates who did participate, Lisa Borowsky had the weakest night - she was all but drowned out by the gaggle of candidates on dais. It's not entirely her fault (COPP should have split the forum based on office sought - 10 on the stage was just too many). In addition, after the first couple of questions that had been prepared by COPP, a series of audience questions were presented to the candidates, but in a move that was unique compared to the other candidate forums that I've attended over the last few years, those questions were directed at specific candidates, not the entire panel. The 'free-form' format of the debate might have worked with a smaller panel, but not here.

On the other hand, the other candidates faced the same conditions, too. If she wants to run for office, Borowsky needs to learn to adapt her presentation style on the fly.

The strongest presentation was from council candidate Nan Nesvig. She was prepared, spoke clearly, definitively and intelligently on a variety of issues. The only flaw in her presentation that I could find (and it's a technical one!) was that she spent a little too much time reading from her prepared notes.

Joel Bramoweth, as has been noted here before, tended to go on a little too long and sometimes made his answers more of a project than was necessary. However, he also was the funniest of the candidates, frequently connecting with the audience poking fun at his own speaking style. Overall, he probably helped himself a little.

Tom Giller (council) and John Washington (write-in candidate for mayor) did a good job of delineating their differences with the status quo, and did so strongly but without being strident.

Incumbent council members Drake and McCullagh stressed the need for a return to civility in Scottsdale politics (Drake) and that they were running to represent the entire city, not just one neighborhood or single section of the city (McCullagh).

In addition, all of the incumbents, including Mayor Manross, pointed out that the city is in decent shape (and to be fair, while there *are* problems here, as in any other city, Scottsdale really *is* in good shape overall).

On the other hand, most of the challengers, including current council member Lane, cited distrust between the City government and the citizens of Scottsdale as one of the big problems facing the city, and used that to call for a change in city goverment.

Anyway, the forum went fairly smoothly, other than some of the format issues cited above. It was not recorded on video, so anyone who couldn't make Thursday's event should plan to attend the EV Tribune Mayoral forum on Tuesday, July 22 in the City Hall Kiva from 6:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. It will be broadcast live on CityCable11 and repeated at various times.

Later!

So, will it get 80% support, or 90%?

Thanks to my sister Patti for the heads-up on this...

Last month, the folks over at Seeing Red AZ were almost apoplectic over the idea that a proposition to rename a San Francisco sewage treatment plant after George W. Bush *could* be on the ballot there this fall.

They'll probably have a stroke when they find out that the measure qualified for the ballot on Wednesday. (SF Elections Department)

Naturally, GOPers in SF have vowed to fight the measure with any means they have available to them; however, something tells me those "means" won't include trying to win at the polls.

According to the SF Elections Department (via a phone call), there are 430,061 registered voters in SF.

43,183 of them are Republicans.

For those of you who are math-challenged, that's 10.04%.

(For the record, there are 241,013 registered Dems in SF (56.04%).)


The website of the organizers behind the measure is here.

SF Chronicle coverage here.

CNN coverage here.

MSNBC coverage here.

I looked for a press release on this from the SF GOP, but couldn't find one.

Later!

Short Attention Span Musing

Responding to some criticism that my posts have been boring recently (lacking in 'wiseass' content), so how 'bout this????


...From the "they probably expect us to ignore the irony" department -

A U.S. attorney has issued a report decrying the conditions in a jail, citing beatings of prisoners by staff, poor medical, and dangerous building conditions as among the reasons that he found that "the jail had systematically violated the constitutional rights of inmates." (NY Times)

Where is this den of brazen brutality located?

Abu Ghraib? Nope, not even the right hemisphere.

Guantanamo? Much closer, but not close enough.

No, the jail that the feds find so objectionable is the Cook County Jail.


In Illinois.


Apparently, the "do as we say, not as we do" gang is still running the show...


...From the "It must be an even numbered year" department,,,,

On Tuesday, both the House and the Senate voted to override Bush's veto of H.R. 6331, The Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008. All four of Arizona's Democratic congressmen voted to override the veto, which wasn't a surprise. However, they were joined by a Republican, and it wasn't Rick Renzi, who occasionally (*very* occasionally :) ) crosses party lines on a specific vote.

Nope, it was John Shadegg (CD3).

The same John Shadegg who scored a 100 in the American Conservative Union's rankings and tied for the most conservative in the House in the National Journal's rankings.

One might think that this vote illustrates Shadegg's (new-found) concern for plight of those of his constituents who rely on Medicare, whether as patients or physicians (and we should expect a press release or 5 trumpeting his "heartfelt" concern). However, there is one point that every one of his constituents should remember - on June 24, he voted against the original bill.

And not only did he vote against the bill on its first trip though the House, he tried to prevent even its mere consideration by twice voting to adjourn the House during debate on H.R. 6331. (here and here)

In other words, Tuesday's vote was just for show, not substance - he's only concerned with his own plight.

Possible unemployment after November.

Yep, Shadegg is definitely hearing Bob Lord's footsteps...

Note: The Senate also voted to override the President's veto of H.R. 6331, by a vote of 70 - 26. Arizona's senatorial delegation voted as is their pattern - Kyl voted against Medicare, and McCain skipped the vote.


...and from the "See! I occasionally pick on Democrats, too!" department -

From the AZ Republic -

Could Sky Harbor soon become home to an army of one-armed bandits?

It might, if Mayor Phil Gordon has his way. Gordon wants to explore the possibility of partnering with a Native American tribe to bring slot machines to the airport.

Good freakin' God! Don't we drop enough money on air trips already?? What's next? Bingo tournaments on the Red Line (the bus route through the airport? Video poker machines on Supershuttle vans??

Later!

FEC Reports are in....

Others have covered this area already, but have tended to focus on their own CDs; the basic raw numbers from all CDs with active committees are included in this post.


Key - candidate - net contributions, individual contributions, PAC contributions, net expenditures, cash on hand. (Net contributions may not match the total of individual and PAC contributions due to refunds, candidate contributions to their own campaigns, or other reasons. Generally, any such variance isn't significant.

CD1 -

Ann Kirkpatrick (D), challenger - $328053.05, $218453.05, $109600.00, $125340.27, $668177.46

Howard Shanker (D), challenger - $33274.60, $33274.60, $0, $46603.04, $20972.36

Mary Kim Titla (D), challenger - $54104.75, $52466.36, $1638.39, $45039.94, $57385.88

Sydney Hay (R), challenger - $95033.73, $76518.73, $18515.00, $59959.65, $257408.09

Preston Korn (R), challenger - $2885.00, $2885.00, $0, $7362.48, $9173.96


CD2 -

John Thrasher (D), challenger - $8295.00, $7895.00, $0, $6599.59, $14207.90

Trent Franks (R), incumbent - $88386.00, $53261.00, $35625.00, $44885.27, $129774.83


CD3 -

Bob Lord (D), challenger - $233202.50, $161794.90, $73507.60, $158933.66, $706523.25

John Shadegg (R), incumbent - $536024.78, $421210.36, $140014.42, $121592.91, $1354246.30

The Shadegg campaign is gloating about their fundraising success during the April - June reporting period, but there's more than a little element of "whistling past the graveyard" in their press releases - Bob Lord is easily the strongest challenger, Dem or Rep, in the state and he's mounting a challenge to Shadegg that is far tougher than any challenge he's faced since entering Congress.

Note: The grand opening of the Lord campaign headquarters is this Saturday, July 19, at 4736 N. 44th St., Phoenix (just south of Camelback) from 11 a.m. - 1 p.m.


CD4 -

Ed Pastor (D), incumbent - $229493.13, $117377.88, $113515.25, $69158.20, $1428843.55


CD5 -

Harry Mitchell (D), incumbent - $335002.66, $224962.13, $113175.00, $85554.75, $1372464.22

David Schweikert (R), challenger - $162749.05, $162749.05, $0, $155851.16, $520990.10

Jim Ogsbury (R), challenger - $49783.24, $46783.24, $3000.00, $79435.55, $323442.10

Laura Knaperek (R), challenger - $34249.00, $37549.00, $0, $23200.05, $105520.79

Mark Anderson (R), challenger - $29278.14, $29278.14, $0, $25618.73, $68791.33

Susan Bitter Smith (R), challenger - $150379.51, $110603.51, $7000.00, $52363.67, $247945.89

The Republican challengers to Harry Mitchell have made some major bets on their abilities to emerge victoriously from the primary and then move on to defeat Mitchell - they've accumulated over $700K in loans and debts - Ogsbury and Schweikert at $250K each, Bitter Smith at more than $156K, and Knaperek has $50K in campaign debt. The only CD5 Rep who lists no campaign loans or obligations is Mark Anderson. In most cases, the loans/debt constitute a significant percentage (half or more) of the candidates' cash on hand totals.

Expect the following headline in mid-November - "Join the LD8 and LD17 Republicans for a joint campaign-debt retirement bake sale and car wash."

OK, OK, probably not... :))

Candie Dates (love that name!) at Sonoran Alliance has a post with some good graphs showing the CD5 challengers' financial positions.


CD6 -

Chris Gramazio (D), challenger - $3137.15, $3075.00, $0, 2539.24, $597.91

Jeff Flake (R), incumbent - $200035.00, $194835.00, $8800.00, $74097.13, $1091474.52


CD7 -

Raul Grijalva (D), incumbent - $125,398.00, $64,398.00, $61,000.00, $89,625.11, $171,043.21.


CD8 -

Gabrielle Giffords (D), incumbent - $562167.97, $381748.16, $181753.35, $156814.05, $2077845.80

Tim Bee (R), challenger - $390406.65, $307856.32, $79950.00, $229078.66, $687703.62


No reports that I could find from challengers Rebecca Schneider (D - CD6), Lee Gentry (R - CD5), Don Karg (R - CD4), or Joe Sweeney and Gene Chewning (Rs - CD7).

Withdrawn candidates - Annie Loyd (I - CD3).

Later!

Clean Elections Corporation Commission Candidate Forum - Primary Edition

On Tuesday morning and afternoon, candidates for the Arizona Corporation Commission, their supports, political junkies and *lots* of lobbyists gathered at the conference room at Rio Salado Community College in Tempe.

The reason for the festivities? The Clean Elections forum for Corporation Commission primary candidates. All of the candidates, both Democratic and Republican, attended the forums, even if they aren't recipients of Clean Elections financing.

The lead sponsor of the forum was the Arizona Telecommunications and Information Council (ATIC). ATIC "is an economic development foundation of the Governor's Strategic Partnership for Economic Development (GSPED). ATIC functions as Arizona's recognized and authoritative organization guiding technology policy development, serving as a leading source of information and expertise on telecommunications and information technology matters." (from their website)


Anyway, because of the high total number of candidates (12), the forum was split into two sessions, with the Democrats - Kara Kelty, Sandra Kennedy, Sam George, and Paul Newman - meeting in the morning, and the many Republicans meeting in the afternoon. (Both sets of candidates fielded the same prepared questions.)


Since I didn't stay through the entirety of both sessions (though I tried! I was really tired from work and about halfway through the Rep session, I started dozing off. It was time to leave. :) ), I won't recap each and every response. The video replay of the forum will eventually be available on ATIC's website and an abbreviated version will air on Cox Cable.


The Democratic candidates were basically on the same page on most issues - in most areas that the ACC is involved in, the commission doesn't need *more* authority, but does need to utilize what authority is already has, and utilize it more fully. They were also all very concerned with the Commission's consumer protection functions.


Like some of the other attendees (Bob Freund of LD8, for one), I went into the forum not knowing who I was going to vote for; because all four candidates did a good job, I still don't know. Certainly, none talked themselves out of consideration.


However, I thought that two of the candidates did a better job of presentation at the forum - Kara Kelty showed a well-thought out grasp of the broad array of issues facing the ACC and Paul Newman exhibited an energy and passion that is sorely needed on the ACC.


Note: Let me be clear here - all of the candidates displayed a high level of intelligence and passion; it's just that Kelty and Newman stood out in those areas.


Now for a few constructive criticisms, so people don't think that the purpose of this post is simply to bash Republicans (though there is plenty of that coming up :)) ) -


Paul Newman - He tended to speak to the moderator, not the audience or the cameras (which were located behind the live audience). This will disconcert people who view the forum on TV or via webcast and could distract viewers from the content of his answers.


Kara Kelty - Early on, she cited the ACC race as the most important statewide race this year. Well, while *technically* that point is completely accurate, it should be noted that it's the *only* statewide race this year. And if I have to be that picky to find something to criticize, it means that she did a great job Tuesday.


Sandra Kennedy - She showed perhaps the greatest understanding of the political and organization process surrounding the ACC and getting things done there. However, on certain policy questions, she had to stop and think of a response. While her responses were intelligent and informed, the hesitation won't look good on TV.


Sam George - In a way, I blame him for making this a tough choice for me. I went in to the forum prepared to write off his candidacy - I've met each of the other candidates at various events, and they each have campaign websites up and running. I'd never met George before this, and he doesn't have a campaign website.


However, he showed up, he knew his stuff, and when I spoke to him briefly after the forum, he advised me that a campaign website is coming.


And lastly, one BIG criticism for the organizers of the forum - the questions were too long and involved. Frequently, the questions took longer to ask than the candidates had time alloted to answer them. In addition, the questions had so many parts to them that there was no way to remember (and answer!) them all. There were a few instances where a candidate didn't directly answer a question, but I won't criticize them for that - the structure of the questions wasn't fair to the candidates. I won't even criticize the Republicans in this regard. They may have had an advantage (they could have prepared by having an observer at the morning session or watching it via webcast), but the questions were just as unfair to them as to the Democratic candidates.




On the other hand, there were things to criticize the Reps over.


Oh yeah. :)




Let's start with the basics - with the possible exception of Marian McClure, none of this bunch understands that 'consumer protection' is a significant part of the ACC's functions.


Their response to any consumer-related concerns was to say that the "free market" and "competition" would address any inequities.


OK, maybe it's just a philosophical difference, but how can people who are pathologically opposed to business regulations stand for an office where their job would be to regulate business? They didn't advocate "responsible" regulation or something similar, they oppose almost any regulation at all.


In regard to efforts to help low-income and fixed-income customers such as the elderly who are facing the impact of skyrocketing energy prices on their household budgets, the candidates felt that current industry-based programs were sufficient. John Allen, former state senator from north Scottsdale, opined that "growing old doesn't qualify you for hardship."


Their views on global warming and other climate change phenomena ranged from McClure's "the jury is still out" thru Rick Fowlkes' global warming is "overstated" all the way to Joe Hobbs' opinion that concerns over global warming have an "almost religious perspective.


Bob Stump (and most of the other candidates) want more nuclear power plants.

Early on in their part of the forum, the Reps got a little testy toward each other. When they weren't reading from the "we're more conservative than thou" playbook, electoral newcomers Rick Fowlkes, Keith Swapp and Joe Hobbs made a point of taking swipes at their opponents (former or current legislators, one and all) for being career politicians. Bob Robson then "took exception" to their comments. (Yes, those were his actual words.)

Based on what I saw at the forum, the least bad of the Republican candidates ("good" would be going way too far :) ) were Marian McClure (for her efforts in the lege to control predatory payday lenders and Barry Wong, a former legislator. While he is just as conservative as any of the others, he did occasionally show an understanding of issues that went beyond the usual Republican knee-jerk talking points.

Anyway, the forum for the general election should be an interesting one (in a compare and contrast sort of way), with the candidate slate from each side approaching the positions they're seeking from very different perspectives.

In addition to the usual Democratic/Republican differences, there will be another one - geographic diversity.

2 of the 4 Democratic candidates are from outside of Maricopa County (Kelty and Newman); only 1 out of the 8 Rep candidates hail from someplace other than here (McClure). I'm not sure if that will make any difference in the general election, but Janet Napolitano showed in 2002 that a candidate doesn't need to win Maricopa County to win a general election in this state (though it doesn't hurt.)

Anyway, that forum is scheduled for September 15, also at Rio Salado Community College, 2323 W. 14th Street, Tempe, from 1:00 p.m. until 3:00 p.m. with a candidate reception to follow.

Later!

Joel Bramoweth, candidate for Scottsdale City Council

Last week, I invited each of the candidates running for office in Scottsdale (mayor and city council) to submit a statement for their candidacy to be published here. Today, I received the 2nd response, from Joel Bramoweth, candidate for Scottsdale City Council. His statement is adapted from a speech, which is why it occasionally reads like he is targeting it toward a live audience. With Mr. Bramoweth's permission, I made a couple of edits in that regard that did not affect the content of his piece, only the readability.

Here it is -

I want to be elected as much as you want to protect and complete the Preserve. I will support you without reservation.

I’m Joel BramOweth and you can HELP ME BRING BACK the ideals of office to City Hall. Born and raised in Tucson, I believe “Elective Office is a Job, it is not a Reward”.

My mom and dad went to Tucson, in 1944 by train from St. Louis, Mo. and when they arrived they had nowhere to go and the town consisted of 35,000 people. They made a life and my dad’s the smartest guy I know.

When I graduated the U of A in December ’69 I wanted to Experience the East coast, drove to Newburyport, MA in an old car without a heater and went to work for a 120 year old silversmith called The Towle Company. I spent 10 years with them working throughout the US and came home to open my own business.

Qualifications: I’ve been self employed for 30 years in real estate management working in four states and along the way I’ve owned some land and built some building and said no to the largest developers and tenants. I have the skill, experience and especially the perspective for the job. (Did you know that each year the council makes about 500 decisions and 375 or 75% of them are real estate related.?)

Prepared: I’ve attended every city council meeting, commissions and interviewed department heads for 28 months and talked to 10,000 people because it’s not just learning the issues; it’s learning your views. “I’m fired up and ready to go”.

Ideals: We need to bring ideals back to city hall by electing modern people who welcome debate without bullying, who are tolerant of new ideas and can do the job without political self-interest or arrogance. If elected officials expect to keep the job, they must do the job and be accountable for the job. We are a wonderful city despite this council, not because of the council. We need change; we need 6 new councilman and I look forward to discussing the issues most important to you and earning your vote.

There is a distinction between “Positions” and “Opinions”. Positions are based on fact, your views and the city’s best interests, opinions are personal and selfish. This council doesn’t get it. Politicians like to decide things, it emboldens them, they like big issues to get reelected like condemning the water company and sweeping the Toll Brothers decision under the rug, this is the old politics of fear, alliance and ideology. It has caused failed lawsuits, referendums and squabbling.

This council has not had one original idea, they jump from problem to problem and draw-out issues creating controversy, lawsuits, condemnations actions and referendums and instead of compromise they bully. Their attitude does not welcome debate and they believe only in their own ideas.

We need a change; we need three new people this year and three in two years. They are sitting right in front of you, they are qualified, modern people who will conduct the business of the city better. I want to be one of them.

I look forward to talking about the issues, which most concern you.

Thank you.

Later!

National Champion ASU softball team receiving some national recognition on Tuesday

According to the Daily Leader, a planned schedule published by the office of House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, the U.S. House of Representatives will consider H. Res. 1323, sponsored by ASU's own (and CD5's own!) Congressman Harry Mitchell.

The text of the bill -

110th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. RES. 1323

Commending the Arizona State University softball team for their victory in the 2008 Women's College World Series.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 8, 2008

Mr. MITCHELL submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

RESOLUTION

Commending the Arizona State University softball team for their victory in the 2008 Women's College World Series.

Whereas, on June 3, 2008, the Arizona State University Sun Devils won the 2008 NCAA Women's College World Series with a resounding 11 to 0 defeat over the Texas A&M Aggies;

Whereas this win marked the first national title for Arizona State University in softball;

Whereas the Arizona State University Sun Devils set a record for the highest margin of victory during a championship game in the NCAA Women's College World Series history;

Whereas the Arizona State University women's softball team won an impressive 66 games this season and went 56 to 5 during the season and went 10 for 10 in the post season under the leadership of Coach Clint Myers;

Whereas super slugger Kaitlin Cochran set a new, NCAA single-season record by drawing 29 intentional walks;

Whereas pitcher Katie Burkhart earned Most Valuable Player honors in the Women's College World Series with 53 strikeouts and a perfect record of 5 wins to 0 losses;

Whereas the Arizona State University coaching staff, comprised of Head Coach Clint Meyers and Assistant Coaches Kirsten Voak and Robert Wager, was named the NFCA's NCAA Division I National Coaching Staff of the Year;

Whereas 6 players, were named to the Louisville Slugger/NFCA All-Pacific Region Team;

Whereas 5 of those 6 players, Katie Burkhart, Mindy Cowles, Krista Donnenwirth, Kaitlin Cochran, and Jackie Vasquez, advanced to earn Louisville Slugger/NFCA All-America honors;

Whereas the Arizona State University softball team earned the enthusiastic support of students, faculty, alumni, and Sun Devils fans across the country during their national championship season; and

Whereas the Arizona State University softball team is an inspiration to student athletes in Arizona and across the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the United States House of Representatives--

(1) commends the Arizona State University softball team for their victory in the 2008 Women's College World Series;

(2) recognizes the achievements of the players, coaches, students, and staff whose hard work and dedication helped the Arizona State University Sun Devils win the championship; and

(3) directs the Clerk of the House of Representatives to transmit a copy of this resolution to Arizona State University President Michael Crow, softball Coach Clint Myers, and Athletic Director Lisa Love for appropriate display.

The House is scheduled to begin legislative business at 10:00 a.m. eastern (7:00 a.m. AZ time). Assuming that the measures are considered in the order that they are listed on the agenda and that they take approximately 20 minutes each to consider and vote on, this resolution should hit the House floor sometime after 9:30 a.m. AZ time. No guarantees, though - the schedule is subject to change without notice.

The bill will be heard under suspension, meaning that it will take a 2/3 vote to pass the bill, but have no fear, Congressman Jeff "Votes Against Everything" Flake probably won't be opposing this one - he signed on a cosponsor.

Either he's mellowing in his dotage, or it's an even-numbered year and he's facing opposition named Rebecca Schneider and Chris Gramazio this fall. Hmmm..... :)

Later....

FEC reports starting to trickle in

There's only two days until the deadline (July 15), but during an election year, most campaigns wait until the last possible minute to reveal how they're doing financially. It's a tactical thing - they're trying to deny any advantage to their opponents.

So far, only a few candidates have submitted their reports. I'll update with a more complete post later this week.

Because the candidate report pickings are slim, I'll include some info from other committees.

From July reports, unless otherwise noted:

Arizona Libertarian Party - Received $35.00, spent $1.62, cash on hand $5067.56

Arizona Republican Party (June report) - Received $98148.51, spent $96082.28, cash on hand $112626.81. Pretty good month there.

Arizona State Democratic Central Executive Committee (June report) - Received $207242.03, spent $109015.08. cash on hand $117746.50. Hmmmm....better than 'pretty good' month there. Much better. :)


Arizona Cotton Growers Association - Received $550.00, spent $2960.53, cash on hand $5246.92. Interesting contributions by the ACGA - $500 each to John Shadegg, Ed Pastor, and Susan Bitter Smith (all running for Congress); $390 to Kevin Gibbons, running for LD18 state senate.

CVS/Caremark Corporation Employees PAC (June report) - Received $19365.00, spent $82000.00, cash on hand $-16983.00. This particular PAC made this list because it has a Scottsdale mailing address. And it spent over $35K in May alone on contributions to races for the Texas legislature. Be interesting to see what they are trying to buy next session.

AgPAC of the Arizona Farm Bureau Federation - Received $10229.26, spent $1007.00, cash on hand $9222.26. Interesting contributions by AgPAC - $500 to John Shadegg, $250 each to Kevin Gibbons (LD18) and Steve Pierce (LD1), Republican candidates for state senate.


Bob Lord, CD3 challenger (Democrat) - No report yet, but his campaign is claiming a very successful quarter. It wouldn't be surprising if the claim is true - John Shadegg has been out shaking every money tree that he can find; there's probably a reason that he's running scared..


Trent Franks, CD2 incumbent (Republican) - Received $57377.44 ($32084.37 from PACs), spent $32800.56, cash on hand $147351.71.

Rick Renzi, CD1 incumbent, not running for reelection (Republican) - Received nada, spent $141.44, cash on hand $3825.02. Campaign committee debt of $456089.91 (candidate loads to his own election committee and legal fees.)

I just like putting up the Renzi numbers. :))


More later this week!

There is hope. It'll take some work, but there *is* hope...

Believe it or not, this is a non-political post...

Over on the right side of this blog, you'll see a link to the blog of progressive writer and columnist David Sirota. While he doesn't use humor to make his points with the ease and authenticity the way that Molly Ivins did ('authentic' means that she was an authentic wiseass :) ), his observations about the corporatization of America and the damage that it has wreaked upon our society are always right on target.

In his most recent newspaper column, he discusses the 'homogenization of American politics', the growing tendency of American media and American voters to focus their attention on the races for President while ignoring more local races like those for city council or state legislature.

He notes in his blog entry on the column -

You can have a conversation about the presidential race with almost anyone these
days - yet most people have no idea who their state legislator is.

His observation is totally accurate. I work with people who can talk about the latest misstep by a presidential candidate on the campaign trail, and do so in great detail, most of them don't know what legislative or congressional district they live in, much less who represents them. And many 'activists' aren't much better - until Ed Hermes announced his candidacy for the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, I didn't know which county district I was in, or who was elected to represent my district (fyi - SD1, Fulton Brock).


A big part of the problem (as noted by Sirota, too) is the homogenization of American culture in general and the growth of conglomerated news and entertainment outlets - large, distant corporations running TV stations in New York, radio stations in Chicago, and newspapers in Podunk.


Local news coverage is getting the short shrift, even from supposedly "local" newspapers and TV stations. Most of those have been conglomerated into corporate media empires whose sole focus is on leveraging their holdings to enhance short-term profits.


Part of the way that they do this is to reduce expenses by closing distant bureaus and news-gathering operations and instead using wire service reports for national news or generically-produced 'human-interest' stories that could be found anywhere, ranging from Springfield, Maine to Springfield, Oregon. When actual local coverage is merited, too often an intern or somebody else equally low-paid cobbles together something from press releases. This approach leads to local news coverage that isn't so much 'coverage' as it is 'exercises in appeasing advertisers and potential advertisers."


And if advertisers/potential advertisers aren't involved? The MSM frequently doesn't even bother showing up.


For instance, even though every candidate in the district was present (2 in the audience, 6 on stage), neither the AZ Republic nor the East Valley Tribune covered Thursday night's candidate forum in LD18. The only MSM coverage, such as it was, was this article on the Phoenix New Times' website warning of a possible nativist rally at the forum. However, they didn't cover the forum itself (I don't really blame the New Times for that - it's more a 'nightlife and entertainment' weekly than a hard news source, though they do some great investigative work over there).


However, in spite of being all but ignored by the MSM, the forum (as well as the LD18 race overall) did get some coverage - from Sophia Tesch in a blog hosted on the AZCentral.com website, this rather low volume conservative blog ('low volume' as in 12 posts since the middle of last October), and me in this blog entry.


While none of the three people who covered the forum could be considered a "professional" journalist (God knows that *I'm* not making any money at this :) ), each is local, active, and knows enough and cares enough about what is going on in their community to share it with others.


Each of us brought a particular viewpoint to the proceedings, watching and evaluating them through a partisan filter, but still presented a factual recounting of the events there.



And therein lies the light at the end of Sirota's dark tunnel of corporatized homogeneity.



Where the MSM has all but abandoned reporting on local people and events, the core activity that helped it grow and become strong enough financially to attract speculators (who have forced too many real journalists out of the industry), average folks have stepped in to fill the void.

Here in Arizona, Tucson, led by Tedski at R-Cubed, already has a thriving regional blogosphere, while the the metro Phoenix-based corps of citizen journalists is growing in both quantity and quality.

Aside from this blog covering Scottsdale and Tempe (and to a lesser extent, Mesa), blogs like Mesa Issues and Scottsdale Activist cover the going-on in their namesake cities, through a partisan filter* to be sure, but there's no denying how heavily they're involved with or how much they care for their communities. While they (and I) publish a large quantity of commentary on many issues, we also cover events in our communities and the people involved with those events.

* - OK, "partisan filter' is putting it tactfully, especially regarding Scottsdale Activist. Some weeks, a reader needs an industrial sifter to cut through all of the invective there. Still, there are usually some interesting little nuggents of info available to those who are patient enough and perceptive enough to find them.

To be fair, I have to say that the East Valley Tribune is at least trying. They may have blown off Thursday's forum, but one or more of their writers usually show up at things like city council meetings and the like. However, over at the AZ Republic, they don't seem to understand that people don't want to buy the regurgitated pap that they are selling just because it generates the most profit for Gannett.

Yes, as Sirota noted, people want to read, hear, and talk about the contest for the presidency.

However, most people understand (even if they don't put it into words) that school boards, city councils, and even state legislatures have a far more direct impact on their lives than a president ever will.

And they want to read, hear, and talk about those offices, too.

Later!

Stranger in a strange land

Not the classic Heinlein novel, just me attending a Republican candidate forum in LD18. :)

The four Republican candidates for the two LD18 House seats (Kanani Henderson, Ron Middlebrook, Cecil Ash, and Steve Court) and the two Rep candidates for the LD18 Senate seat (Kevin Gibbons and Russell Pearce) attended the Clean Elections primary forum in the EVIT auditorium on Thursday night.

The 100 or so audience members, while more ethnically and politically diverse than I had originally anticipated, definitely trended toward the "pale nativist" demographic (more on that in a moment).

I won't try to do a complete recap of the forum - the event video will be posted on the Clean Elections website within a few days for those who are interested in the full forum.

However, some of the "highpoints" included -

...Prior to the event, I passed by a beat-up van with the Arizona licence plate "CUTGOVT."

Wonder if the owner of that vehicle or the government employees who processed and issued that plate appreciated the irony there.

...Also prior to the event, a woman handed me a printed copy of this New Times' article that warned of a planned nativist rally at the forum.

Not sure if there was a "rally" per se, but they were definitely out in force.

As were the police.

,,,During a forum question regarding illegal immigration, one audience member shouted out that illegal immigrants should be sent to the gas chamber.

I wish I was kidding about that.


Anyway, the forum's sponsor was the Children's Action Alliance, and its CEO, Dana Naimark, kicked off the forum while Alberto Olivas of the Maricopa Community Colleges Center for Public Policy moderated the forum.

First up were the candidates for representative; while there were differences between them, those differences were less substantive than nuanced. Not a moderate among them.

Ron Middlebrook is a Republican PC from the same precinct as Russell Pearce (Mesa 16) and he is an ideologue straight out of the Pearce mold. When asked what he hoped to accomplish in the lege, he started sounding off on liberal activist federal judges. He wants to amend the U.S. Constitution to exempt states from compliance with federal court rulings.

Guess he doesn't realize that he's running for the *Arizona* House of Representatives.

Like Pearce, he supports balancing the state's budget by overturning voter-approved measures that mandate spending on specific issues (like children's health care!)

When asked what he thought the state could do to combat the high drop out rate in Arizona's schools, he blamed illegal immigrants for the high rate.

A quick read of his website makes me wonder if he might be one of those illegal immigrant high school dropouts that he bemoaned - on it, he writes of his support of "boarder" security (not a typo there - he does it twice) and that he believes that (emphasis mine) "Nothing would do more to improve the quality of education in our stare than vouchers."

To sum up - he's Russell Pearce without the term limits.


Cecil Ash is also a PC (Mesa 94). His answers to the questions were a bit more thoughtful than Middlebrook's, but he often fell back on Republican cliches ("private industry is better than the government", "seal the border", etc.)

His best response was to a question about how to reduce the high turnover of state employees - he questioned the underlying premise of the question, wondering that perhaps the real problem wasn't employee turnover, it was employees staying in their positions (and on the public payroll!) for too long.

BTW - In this context "best" is short for "best shows his cluelessness on this particular issue." "Best" has fewer syllables, which is why I chose to use it. :)


Retired businessman Steve Court stuck to the party line - he wants to rein in the state's budget, fix the state's failing public school system with "magnet" schools and vouchers, and ease government regulation of businesses.


The fourth House candidate, Kanani Henderson, is the director of a school tuition organization (STO) (an STO is an organization designed to funnel taxpayer money to private schools under the guise of 'school choice.') She was also, perhaps, the most polished of the four candidates. While her answers were pure party rhetoric, they had depth and relevance (the significance of that was made obvious during the Senate portion of the forum - more on that later :) ).

With her answers, she tended to hit the neocon high points (Reagan, pro-life, and, of course, school choice). However, her best answer was also to the state employee turnover question mentioned above (same meaning of "best" as above, too) -

She suggested that the best way to reduce the turnover of state employees was to "find people who are passionate about handing out drivers licenses and delivering mail".

She may have been sarcastic with her "passionate" comment (I'm not sure) but she needs her campaign manager or somebody she trusts to sit her down and gently break the news to her - post office employees are *not* state employees. If she wins election to the lege and tries to mess with them, all she'll get for her trouble is a visit from some postal inspectors and maybe the FBI.

Regarding ballot propositions, all four expressed strong support for the lege-pushed ban on same sex marriage, expressed support for the payday loan industry-supported proposition to permanently legalize that business (they expressed distaste for the business, but their "free market" ideals overrode any desire to regulate predatory lenders), and opposed the measure on imposing a transportation-dedicated sales tax (TIME initiative.) They also generally opposed a hypothetical move to earmark state money to help the growth of Phoenix/Mesa Gateway Airport, however, they left enough wiggle room in their positions to allow for a change depending on specific circumstances.

In summary, Ron Middlebrook was easily the most extreme of the four, but other three were no slouches in the "more conservative than thee" department - they all make Barry Goldwater look like a RINO. Additionally, none of them talked about representing the district, only about their conservative principles.

In other words, they're all obedient little ideologues.


The Senate part of the forum was at once shorter and more colorful. Both candidates, Kevin Gibbons and Russell Pearce, frequently gave answers that were both apocryphal and irrelevent.

They also didn't appreciate the irony in some of their answers. For instance, when asked what they thought were some of the good things that the lege had done recently, and what were some of the mistakes, both said that the lege hasn't done much right recently.

And both conveniently neglected to note that their party has controlled the lege since God covered Arizona in dust and cactus needles.

Other highlights included Russell Pearce saying that "the bloated welfare state" was responsible for there being children in America without health insurance/care and that the "free market" could address the problem; a few moments later, Kevin Gibbons admitted that for a brief period when he and his wife were just starting a family and he was still a student at ASU, they were on AHCCCS.

Perhaps the biggest area of disagreement between the two was Pearce's whole-hearted support of the employer sanctions anti-immigrant law that he wrote (not exactly a surprise, that) and Gibbons' call to "revisit" the law (a position that elicited gasps from multiple audience members).

Toward the end, some of the discussion got a little more directly personal.

For instance, Gibbons said that one of the things that he wanted to do was change the "tone" at the lege, and that Pearce was part of the reason that the lege was so dysfunctional.

This also elicited gasps from some audience members, but I'm not sure why. Both Pearce and Gibbons are running for the same office and they obviously don't like each other very much. Anybody who was shocked that one directly criticized the other needs to get out more.

Summary of the candidates' presentations:

Pearce may not have answered all of the questions directly, but he stay on message the whole time - blame immigrants for everything and scare people with public safety concerns. His ability to stay focused made it obvious that he's been through this before.

Gibbons, on the other hand, made it painfully clear that he is a political neophyte. Many of his answers were either irrelevent to the question he had been asked, or were "lawyer" answers - lots of words, little meaning.

He did, however, have the best line of the night - he observed that for all of Pearce's small government rhetoric, he has spent the vast majority of his adult life feeding at the public trough through one government job or another. Gibbons said that he was working to give Pearce a couple of years off to experience the private sector.

OK, so it was funnier in person there than in writing here. :))



Other notes -

The CCEC forum for the general election has been scheduled for September 17 and will include both of the Democratic candidates for LD18, Tammie Pursley (House) and Judah Nativio (Senate).

Both Democratic candidates, as well as a number of their supporters, were in attendance at the forum.

I spoke briefly with them, and both Pursley and Nativio are nearly done collecting their 5s for Clean Elections funding; both advised that anyone interested in helping them reach their goal should visit their websites (linked above) for the forms and contribution information.

In addition, while website for Pursley is currently a Facebook page, her campaign site, Pursleyforchange.com, is scheduled to go live within a few days. Check back there for updates.


Anyway, this post has taken wayyyyy longer than I planned, and I need to get some sleep.

Later!

The McCain Campaign Is Making It Christmas In July For The Obama Campaign

It seems that this week that whenever something happens that could hurt the Obama campaign, the McCain campaign does something to move the public's attention over to their own screw-ups.

Earlier this week, Sen. Obama ticked off anyone who is concerned about civil liberties with his vote in favor of immunity for telecommunication companies that aided George Bush's illegal surveillance of Americans after September 11, 2001.

Then everybody realized that while Obama's vote was *totally* wrong, at least he showed up and stood up, taking the (well-deserved) heat for that vote.

John McCain, on the other hand, still can't be bothered to show up to his day job - he missed the same vote.


Then the Rev. Jesse Jackson was caught on a live mic criticizing Sen. Obama on Fox News (BTW - Whatthehell was Jackson doing on Fox anyway? He's been around long enough to know that any Dems on Fox are going to get ambushed.)

The deep embarrassment of the remark from a staunch supporter was nothing compared to the "pain in the neck" factor of having it played on cable news shows over and over ad absurdum.

But then, true to form, the McCain campaign helped out their rivals by trotting out Phil Gramm, a senior McCain advisor (and perhaps the only man in the country who could give lessons in "mean and callously uncaring" to Dick Cheney). So what did Gramm do to help divert some of the heat from the Obama campaign?

He told interviewers for the Washington Times that Americans were "whiners" for worrying about the current economic troubles facing the average family.

Actually, he said that America was a "nation of whiners."

And for that and similarly ham-handed moves, Barack Obama should add John McCain and his senior campaign staffers (and advisors!) to his Christmas card list.

BTW - Whatthehell was McCain thinking when he brought Gramm on board as his economic advisor? Gramm's greatest claim to fame regarding economic policy came when Gramm ran interference for Enron on Capitol Hill when they were working to cripple California's economy.

Probably *not* the best guy to have as a highly visible part of your team when running for President during a recession.

Later!

Short Attention Span Musing

...In this post, Greg at Espresso Pundit brought up a good point about Scottsdale's elections, and the impact of the move to a September/November cycle from a March/May one.

The point that he made was that the Republican primary in CD5 likely will elevate the Republican turnout for September's election.

This wouldn't be significant under the old March/May municipal election schedule, as Scottsdale's municipal elections are non-partisan.

Under the old schedule, it wouldn't matter that Mayor Mary Manross is a registered Democrat or that her challenger Councilman Jim Lane is a Republican.

However, the new schedule and the expected elevated Republican turnout on a primary day where the only significant Democratic race is for County Attorney (not a race that will elevate Democratic primary turnout - most of us are focused on November, not September) could contribute to a Lane upset over the favored incumbent, Manross.

Greg's point is a valid one, but I'm not sure it quite fits in Scottsdale.

In a city like Scottsdale, partisan political concerns take a back seat to financial political concerns, and Manross is seen as whole-heartedly representing the city's moneyed interests (witness the Chamber of Commerce's endorsement of her); Lane is quiet about it, but he supports the more socially extreme wing of his party (witness his active support of JD Hayworth in 2006).

The CD5 primary *will* elevate Republican turnout in Scottsdale for September's election, but the increased turnout won't just bring out the socially conservative Republicans, it'll bring out the money-focused ones, too.

In short, the elevated turnout *should* help Lane somewhat, but it's going to have some benefit for Manross, too. The key factor in the race could be John Washington's write-in candidacy. If he pulls in enough votes to keep both Manross and Lane below 50% in the final tally, it will force a November runoff, and as Laura Pastor learned in last fall's elections in Phoenix (and Hut Hutson learned in Tempe this spring), it doesn't matter who's favored, *anything* can happen in a runoff.


...Want another reason to understand why change is needed in the Sheriff's office?

The East Valley Tribune is running a five-day series on the MCSO. Wednesday's headline -

"Reasonable Doubt: The evolution of MCSO into an immigration agency"

Just a reminder - the "MC" in "MCSO" stands for Maricopa County, not Border Patrol.

Even though Maricopa County is the stolen car capital of the country, Joe Arpaio's obsession with Mexicans has led to him taking dozens, sometimes hundreds, of deputies off of patrol duties to deploy them on anti-brown people, "broken taillight" sweeps.

Vote to return professionalism to the office of the Maricopa County Sheriff - Vote for Dan Saban.


...On July 20th, there will be two Democratic fundraisers that, while scheduled so as to not overlap, should provide an interesting contrast -

- From 3:00 p.m. until 5:00 p.m., there will be a Happy Birthday party for Congressman (and Tempe icon) Harry Mitchell at Shalimar Golf Club in Tempe (contact the campaign at 480.755.3343 or via email to herschel[at]harry2008.com for more details.)

- At 7:00 p.m., the Arizona Democratic Party is holding its annual Heritage Dinner, featuring special guest Congressman (and bane of grassroots Democratic activists everywhere) Rahm Emanuel (D-IL). (Contact the ADP at RSVP[at]azdem.org or (602) 234-6814 for more details.)

Can anyone guess which one will have the larger and more enthusiastic crowd? :)

Somebody should tell the ADP's schedulers that there are 365 days per year, and other than (maybe!) Christmas, Thanksgiving, and election days, any of the other 364 would have been a better choice for the Heritage Dinner.

BTW - I'm just teasing a little with this one - I've already been told that Harry will be at the Heritage Dinner. Turnout should be just fine there, too. :))


...The Arizona Sierra Club's report card for the just-completed session of the Arizona lege is out (and thank to Zelph at AZNetroots for the heads-up :) ).

It's interesting to note that the three Republicans who were in the lege but are running for Arizona Corporation Commission (those darn term limits!), Marian McClure, Bob Robson, and Bob Stump (state reps one and all) each earned "Fs" from the Sierra Club for their efforts in the lege.

It's hard to tell from the name, but the Corporation Commission is the political body best positioned to lead the quest for affordable alternative energy options and cleaner air in AZ.

Well, at least it will be when we elect actual public servants to the board, instead of people who are just as much industrial tools as any strip-mining excavator or coal-powered electrical generator.

Remember: Paul Newman, Sandra Kennedy, Kara Kelty, and Sam George for Corporation Commission - three of them will move on after the primary, and any of the four is better than any of the Republicans running. (Sorry, Sam George supporters, still haven't found a website for him :) ).

House report card here; Senate report card here.

BTW - LD17 legislators Sen. Burton Cahill and Representatives Ableser and Schapira all earned grades of "A" or better. Congrats to all three on jobs well done!

Later!