The short list for the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

On Wednesday, the Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments, chaired by Rebecca White Berch, Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court, interviewed 39 applicants for the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).  They screened the pool down to 25 (10 Ds, 10 Rs, 5 Independents).

The leadership of the legislature - House Speaker Kirk Adams, Senate President Russell Pearce, House Democratic leader Chad Campbell, and Senate Democratic leader David Schapira - will each select a member (presumably from their own parties) and those four will select someone from the pool of Independent applicants to act as chair.

As is unusual on West Washington, but apparently the norm for meetings conducted by Chief Justice Berch, the meeting started on time. 

However, I arrived late.  Not to worry though.  Punctual they may be, they are still (mostly) lawyers, and they like to talk.  They were still in the preliminary, executive session part the meeting when I arrived at approximately 9:25 a.m. and hadn't started the actual interviews. (That punctuality caught up to me after lunch, but not too badly.)

The interview session started at around 9:40. 

They asked each of the candidates the same three questions, periodically rotating the questioners.

The first question asked the candidates to explain their understanding of the purpose and process of the Redistricting Commission.

The second question inquired as to the candidates' ability and willingness to make the time committment necessary for the AIRC.

The final, wrap-up, question asked the candidates to talk about what experience and skills that they would bring to the Commission, and why the Appellate Court Appointments Commission should forward their name to the legislature for final consideration.

To sum up, paraphrasing Chief Justice Berch, it was the shortest job interview any of the applicants (and the onlookers) had likely ever seen.

Most of the answers to the first question were decent, ranging from a few who gave answers that sounded like they were straight out of a tea party textbook (the U.S. House of Representatives is "the People's House", etc.) to a thorough understanding of the AIRC (to be fair though, that candidate had an advantage - he had been the executive director of the first AIRC).

The answers for the second question varied a little more.  While most of the candidates stated that yes, they would be able to make the time committment necessary, they were all over the place in their understanding of the time that they would need.

The conception of that ranged for 4 hours per week (huh?!?) to 5300 hours total.  The number heard most often was 15 hours/week, but most of that will be front-loaded into the first 6 - 8 months of the Commission's activities.  Presumably after that period, the bulk of the Commission's work will be complete, though litigation is all but inevitable.

Redistricting, even if it is done fairly, honestly, and transparently, ticks off special interest groups, who will sue to try to get an outcome more favorable to their interests.  Perhaps they will sue especially if redistricting is done fairly, honestly, and transparently.

After the first few months, the workload should lessen for the rank-and-file members of the AIRC.  However, in light of the likely litigation, the chair of the AIRC will be busy for at least a couple of years, dealing with lawyers, the media, and more lawyers.

The Independent applicants are in line for the chairmanship, and most of them exhibited almost no clue as to what they are in for.

*Someone* is going to feel like they got hit by a bus.

Anyway, the list of finalists, linked to their applications:

Democrats -

Robert Cannon of Phoenix

Marshall Worden of Tucson

Lawrence Mohrweis of Flagstaff

Jose Herrera of Phoenix

William Roe of Tucson

Marcia Busching of Phoenix

Eric Henderson of Holbrook

Mark Rubin of Tucson

Jimmie Smith of Yuma

Linda McNulty of Tucson

None of the Democratic candidates were unanimously supported.  One of the Republicans on the Appellate Court Appointments Commission, Doug Cole, wouldn't support strong D candidates.  The list, however, was approved unanimously.

Cole works for High Ground Inc. for Chuck Coughlin, Governor Jan Brewer's chief "adviser."  He was appointed by Brewer in 2009 and is widely regarded as "the Governor's guy" on the Appellate Court Appointments Commission.


Independents -

Raymond Bladine of Phoenix

Colleen Mathis of Tucson

Kimber Lanning of Phoenix

Paul Bender of Phoenix

Margarita Silva of Laveen

Bladine was the only candidate here who was unanimously supported.  Paul Bender was the most highly qualified of all of the candidates but one considered by some to be too liberal to be acceptable.  Many of the Republicans refused to vote for him individually.  Two of the Republicans, including Doug Cole, didn't even vote to approve the list that included Bender.


Republicans -

Jim Bruner of Scottsdale

Mark Schnepf of Gilbert

Louis DeLeon of Phoenix

Lynn Werner of Tempe

Benny White of Tucson

Susan Shultz of Paradise Valley

Michael Perry of Phoenix

Patrick McWhortor of Cave Creek

Scott Freeman of Phoenix

Stephen Sossaman of Queen Creek

Two of the Republican applicants were supported unanimously - Mark Schnepf and Louis DeLeon.  Color me shocked.  Or not.

Schnepf received 14 votes (Chief Justice Berch didn't vote and wouldn't have unless there was a tie in need of breaking.  There wasn't, so she didn't.) and Louis DeLeon received 13 because Louis Araneta, one of the nominating commission members, is his cousin.  Mr. Araneta recused himself during consideration of his cousin's application.

It was interesting to see how the tenor of the interviews changed once the Republicans took the floor.  While the panel was professional and courteous during the interviews of the Democratic and Independent candidates, they became almost deferential with the Republicans.  For example, if Cole and Schnepf were any more buddy-buddy, we'd have (politely) suggested that they  get a room.  (Relax Rs, that's just a metaphor for "they liked each other a lot."  Let me be clear - there was no evidence that one or both is gay.)

The meeting ended a little early.  The projection had been for it to take until 3 p.m., but the meeting was adjourned at 2:43 p.m.

Now the four legislators will hear from *everybody* about who they should choose for the redistricting commission.  Those selections will start in mid-January, with the final, fifth, selection occurring by the end of February.  The redistricting commission should (in theory!) be done its work by next fall.

In theory.

Stay tuned.


All of the applications, including those of the candidates who didn't make the cut, and the written public comments submitted in support of/opposition to particular candidates, here.

Arizona Republic coverage, courtesy Mary Jo Pitzl, here.

Jan Brewer in D.C. dismissing those who need transplants

YouTube video from ThinkProgress -



One of the reasons that I became actively involved in politics was because I became thoroughly embarrassed in 2006 by my then-Congressman, J.D. Hayworth and some local guy named Harry Mitchell ran against him.  Mitchell was a retired teacher (you may have heard of him :) ) and brought a measure of dignity and respect for public service to the office.

In 2010, things in AZ have regressed, and if he were still in office, Hayworth would be considered "middle of the pack" in terms of his embarrassment factor.  There is a glimmer of hope, however -

Some folks who previously were as thoroughly disinterested in politics as I am disinterested in Lifetime cable network movies are now as embarrassed by Jan (and her clan) as I was by Hayworth.  They're now realizing how much trouble Arizona (and Arizonans) is in because of Brewer's heartlessness.

Hopefully, enough of them will become active and be able to help change the course of this once-great state.

Open Letter To President Obama Regarding The "Compromise" On The Budget-Busting Bush Tax Cuts For The 2%-ers

On Monday, President Obama announced a tentative deal with the Republicans in Congress over extending the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans.

In addition to the tax cuts for the wealthy, the deal includes an extension of Unemployment Insurance benefits for the long-term unemployed as well as some tax code tweaking that benefits the middle class.  However, like the Bush-era tax cuts, those seem to disproportionately benefit the wealthy (i.e. - the adjustments to the estate tax).

While the UI benefits are necessary, and middle and working-class tax relief is welcome, the disproportionate nature of the deal makes it less a "compromise" than an "abject surrender" and should be taken off the table. 

Below is the open letter I wrote to the President on the subject.  It turns out to be a little too long for the White House's online submission form, so it wasn't submitted to the White House verbatim.  However, I will submit a brief comment with a link to this post so they can read the entire thing if they choose to (they won't so choose, but the option will be theirs.)

The letter -

Dear President Obama,


I read with great interest regarding the deal you have struck with the Republicans in Congress over a two-year extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent of Americans.

I understand and laud your desire to ensure continued relief for those unemployed Americans who have seen their Unemployment Insurance benefits expire, especially during the holiday season.

I further understand that a lot of effort went into the negotiations for this compromise.

And I believe that you should take the deal off the table.

Not because I’m opposed to extending UI benefits to those who need them so desperately, but because on many levels the benefit of the deal isn’t worth the price was paid for it.

The deal isn’t paid for. It both increases expenditures and reduces revenues and will necessitate more borrowing from foreign sources in order to sustain the “budget.” It effectively deepens the deficit at a time when most observers, Democratic, Republican, and non-partisan, support bringing the federal government’s fiscal situation under control.

It’s bad short-term politics. As with health care reform, Wall St. regulation reform, and so many other earlier initiatives, the Republicans staked out a position and didn’t “compromise” so much as waited for you and the Democratic leadership in the Congress to water down your positions to the point that your positions were meaningless. There is a difference between “compromise” and “surrender.” Compromise is the settlement of differences by mutual concessions; surrender is what has been going on in D.C.

It’s bad long-term politics. This deal, and the ones the preceded it, have totally dispirited the base of the Democratic Party and alienated Independent voters. In 2010, Democratic candidates all over the country were swamped in a Republican wave, due in no small part to the fact that Independent voters trended toward Republicans and low-efficacy Democrats stayed home. How bad will 2012 be if the malaise spreads to high-efficacy Democrats?  In addition, by kicking the can down the road for two years, the Republicans have a ready-made talking point for the 2012 campaign.

If the election were held today, any Republican with a heartbeat would win the White House, not because everyone will vote Republican.

Most voters will just refuse to vote Democratic.

At some point, D.C. Democrats will have to start fighting for the American people. Otherwise, the American people will completely abandon them.

That time should be now. It’s time to stand up for average Americans AND for fiscal responsibility.

Take the current deal off of the table. The Republicans will scream about it, but face facts – you could cure cancer, the common cold, and male pattern baldness and they would still find a rationale to criticize you (though the “male pattern baldness” cure might cause a few of them to hesitate).

If the Republicans want the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% and the reduction of the estate tax on the largest estates, and they do, make them negotiate in good faith and actually “compromise.”

For example, for a one year extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% and their estates, a similar-length extension of long-term UI benefits would be in order, along with passage of START.

For a two year extension, a similar-length extension of UI benefits, START, passage of the DREAM Act, and repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

And before they get anything, make sure they hold up their end of the deal first. Two years of them demanding concessions on significant legislation and then voting against that watered-down legislation anyway has rendered them totally devoid of credibility.

They could still balk at this. In fact, they probably will – their strategy of obstruction has worked for them for two years, and they have no reason to stop following that strategy.

Until you make it stop working for them.

Mr. President, thank you for your time, and may you and your family have a joyful holiday season.

Regards,

[cpmaz]

Hardly my best writing, but that's what happens when I write while pissed off.  The sad part is that I'm less pissed off at the Rs for simply doing what Republicans do (yes, they're benefitting from low expectations here) than I am at the Democrats for enabling the Rs.

Naivete: Thy Name Is Santa Cruz County Board Of Supervisors

From the Nogales International -

The county government is sending letters to its six representatives in the new state Legislature, both to congratulate them on their general election victories and to urge them to stop passing the state’s financial responsibilities on to Arizona’s counties.


The letters, approved by the board of supervisors on Wednesday, express confidence in the legislators’ leadership while at the same time criticizing the previous Legislature’s efforts to balance the budget “not by cutting state spending but by shifting state responsibilities to counties.”

The letters can be found here, starting at page 9 of the .pdf download.

Not to sound *too* pessimistic here (OK, that's foreshadowing - I'm going to be REALLY pessimistic), but the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors are going to be disappointed.

The few Rs at the lege who would even consider placing the interests of their districts ahead of staying in lockstep with extreme GOP ideology (Carolyn Allen, Tibshraeny, Konopnicki) are no longer there, and none of those had districts that covered Santa Cruz County.

Even with those members in the last session of the legislature, the Rs running the show on West Washington had no problem with shifting burdens onto municipalities and counties while at the same time restricting the ability of those municipalities and counties to adapt to the higher level of responsibility.

Santa Cruz County is so overwhelmingly Democratic that only one Republican candidate for state office, State Sen. Frank Antenori, won a majority of votes in the part of his district that includes Santa Cruz County (and even then, his margin there was only 88 votes).  Just because of basic partisanship, they're not going to feel any love for Santa Cruz County to begin with.

Add in the fact that the population demographic in Santa Cruz County is 80% Hispanic and the overwhelming majority of the R candidates in the state in 2010 ran on a campaign platform that could best be summarized as "I'm a bigot."

Arizona counties in general are going to be screwed in 2011, but Santa Cruz County should expect to be targeted for "special" treatment.

Maybe it'll be a Jack Harper-sponsored toxic waste dump in Patagonia, maybe it will be a Russell Pearce-sponsored concentration "undocumented immigrant detention" camp in downtown Nogales, maybe it will be some other even more creative bit of nastiness, but the Santa Cruz County Supervisors should spend less time crafting meaningless letters and more time filling sandbags.

They've got a deluge coming.

Redistricting Commission Interviews On Wednesday

The Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments will interview the 40 remaining candidates for the next Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.  They'll winnow the field down to 25 (10 Ds, 10 Rs, 5 Independents).  From those 25, the two highest-ranking Republicans and the two highest-ranking Democrats in the legislature (in order of selection:  Rep. Kirk Adams (R), Rep. Chad Campbell (D), Sen. Russell Pearce (R), and Sen. David Schapira (D) ) will each select one member of the Redistricting Commission, and then those four selectees will choose an Independent member who will chair the Commission.

The complete official notice of the meeting is here but here's the summary:

Date - Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Time - 8 a.m - ? (while there will be a few breaks, this one should go a while)
Place - Room 345, Arizona State Courts Building, 1501 W. Washington, Phoenix

Full agenda here, but here's the summary of *that*:

8 a.m. - Meeting opens, public comment accepted.
9:15 a.m. - Interviews with Democratic applicants
10:30 a.m. - Discussion and selection of Democratic applicants (may be partially conducted in exec session)
11 a.m. - Interviews with Independent applicants
11:50 a.m.- Discussion and selection of Independent applicants (again, may possibly include an exec session)
12:15 - Lunch
1 p.m. - Interviews with Republican applicants, followed by discussion (exec session possible again) and selection, culminating with adjournment.

Note: some of the interviews may be conducted telephonically.

Assuming they are able to stick to the timetable on the agenda (which might be an optimistic assumption), I project the meeting to adjourn around 3 p.m.


Stuff to keep an eye on:

While I don't know any of the Appellate Court Appointments Commission members personally, I can guess the names of at least two of the applicants who will make the cut with them -

Louis DeLeon and Mark Schnepf.

The Appellate Court Appointments Commission bent over backwards, violating its own rules for applications, to see that both would stay in the pool of applicants.

All of the applicants had to complete the same application package, and that package includes the following instruction:

“ATTACH A STATEMENT OF INTEREST EXPLAINING WHY YOU ARE INTERESTED IN SERVING ON THE INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION.  Applications that do not include a statement of interest will be considered incomplete and will NOT be considered for nomination.”

The applications as originally completed by DeLeon and Schnepf didn't include such a statement and so should have been immediately excluded from further consideration.

However, the Commission bent its own rules to allow Schnepf and DeLeon submit their statements of interest later in the process.  (They did so, with Schepf's here and DeLeon's here).

I'm not sure what DeLeon's special connections are (though he spent a chunk of his career with Anheuser-Busch, and John McCain's wife is one of A-B's largest U.S. distributors...or maybe it's just me being a little cynical :) ), but Schnepf's are clear and rather voluminous -

Former Mayor of Queen Creek
Former Member and Officer (multiple offices) of the League of Arizona Cities & Towns
Member, Arizona Farm Bureau
Member, National Federation of Independent Business
Member and former member of a number of county- and state-level boards, commissions, and councils
Member and former member of a number of East Valley and Arizona civic and business community boards

Oh, and he's married to a Biggs (State Sen.-elect Andy Biggs will be chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee starting in January).

And all of that is just from his application.

One other thing, aside from the initial lack of a statement of interest in Schnepf's application packet, that the Appellate Court Appointments Commission has apparently overlooked is the requirement that candidates cannot have been appointed to or elected to public office for at least the previous three years.

In this context public office means (from the published list of requirements for candidates) -

DEFINITION OF ‘PUBLIC OFFICE’



Members of the IRC may not have been appointed to, elected to or a candidate for any other public office, including precinct committeeman or committeewoman but not including school board member or officer, within the last three years. In making nominations for the IRC, the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments will consider the following factors in determining whether an applicant will be disqualified as having held or run for a public office:


1. Is the position created by the Arizona Constitution or a statute?


2. If so, is the position authorized to independently perform duties that involve exercise of the government’s authority? 

These factors will be considered on a case-by-case basis because it is not possible to provide an exhaustive list of all positions that would be considered ‘public office.’ However, it is clear that people who have held or run for the following offices within the last three years are ineligible for nomination and appointment to the IRC:

{snip}

Water or Fire District

In 2008, Schnepf was elected to the New Magma Irrigation and Drainage District (NMIDD).  It's name doesn't say "Water" in it, but according to this U.S. Bureau of Reclamation document, it *is* a water district in all practical terms (emphasis added) -

The New Magma Irrigation and Drainage District (NMIDD) was formed in 1965 upon the dissolution of the New Magma Irrigation District. The new district was formed for the purpose of receiving CAP water.

Yup, it seems that there's some serious contortions going on to make sure that Schnepf makes it on to the Redistricting Commission.  The only question seems to be if he will be appointed by Kirk Adams or Russell Pearce, who are both East Valley residents.

BTW - DeLeon's application has at least one answer, that if not an automatic disqualifier, should at least be targeted for clarification during the interview.

Question #2 asks "Will your employement and/or personal circumstances permit you to attend meetings of the Independent Redistricting Commission in their entirety?"

DeLeon answered "No."

Interesting answer.  Someone who essentially applying for a job (unpaid though it may be) by saying that he can't attend to it.

Oh - the partisan makeup of the 15-member Appellate Court Appointments Commission?


3 Independents

4 Democrats

8 Republicans


Can you say "IOKIYAR rules" kiddies?. 

Isn't this one of Nostradamus' signs of the impending apocalypse?

From Politico via the Arizona Republic -

More parents naming babies after Palin girls

The power of the Palins: Turns out it's not limited to nabbing invitations to rumba on "Dancing With the Stars." The famous Alaskan clan also influenced what new parents named their babies this year.

According to BabyCenter, a global interactive parenting network, the names Bristol, Willow and Piper (the names of the three Palin daughters) saw a big surge in popularity in 2010.

What does it say about America that parents are naming their children after the children of someone who could have been a single heartbeat away from being president, but every time she opens her mouth, shows herself to be a single braincell away from being plant life?

Expect Wikileaks' founder to be on the run within days...

But not for releasing documents and videos showing U.S. procedures and actions during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, nor for the recent release of documents and cables.

Nope, the first only endangered U.S. troops and allies, while the second has mostly just embarrassed U.S. officials.  While there has been a lot of public posturing over the document releases, not much is likely to come of those - Wikileaks is outside of the U.S. and thus outside of the U.S. legal system (the person who allegedly downloaded the documents and fed them to Wikileaks?  Not so much...)

What's sure to generate a drive to hunt down, and shut down, Wikileaks is the next target of a document release, as promised by Julian Assange, the organization's/website's founder.

From CNNMoney -

WikiLeaks' founder claims he has the goods that could take down a big U.S. bank. But there's little sign anyone believes him.


Julian Assange, the founder of the site that has gained notoriety by publishing secret U.S. military and diplomatic documents, said in an interview this week that the next WikiLeaks target is a major bank.

It should be interesting to see how the D.C. types rationalize going hard after Assange and Wikileaks over the bank expose (assuming Assange's promise is real) while for all practical terms ignoring the more serious endangerment of troops (I don't care about the embarrassment of government officials, and I'm guessing that most other folks don't either).

You can be sure they'll find a way though - troops don't make "contributions" to politicians the way that Wall St. banksters do.

Press release of the day...

...Didn't have to look far for this one - it's from the Republican caucus of the Arizona State Senate...

From the press release -

Senate President-elect Russell Pearce recently received a coveted national award for his dogged efforts to fight illegal immigration. Sen. Pearce nabbed “Daring the Odds: The Annie Taylor Award” from The David Horowitz Freedom Center. A ceremony was held for Sen. Pearce and other courageous award winners at Restoration Weekend 2010 at The Breakers Hotel in Palm Beach, Florida.

OK, I'm not one who describes hatin' on brown-skinned people as "courageous" but given the makeup of the GOP caucus in the lege, we probably should be happy that white robes and hoods haven't replaced the bola tie as Arizona's signature clothing item.  Yet, anyway.

The fun part of the press release came later, in the last paragraph...

The Annie Taylor Award is named for Annie Edson Taylor, the first person to go over Niagara Falls in a barrel. She braved the falls in 1901, in a barrel she designed herself. When she exited the barrel, she said “No one should ever do that again.”

Ummm...if I understand all this correctly, they are crowing about Russell Pearce receiving an award that equates Pearce's nativism with climbing into a barrel and going over Niagara Falls in that barrel.

Now, going over the Falls in a barrel is a great metaphor for what the Republicans are doing to Arizona, except they aren't the ones in the water, we are, and we don't even have a barrel to protect us (safety measures being signs of "creeping socialism" or some such blather).

Something tells me that there is going to be an opening in the communications office of the Republican caucus of the Arizona State Senate in the near future.

BTW - At least Ms. Taylor had the wisdom to realize that maybe what she did wasn't bright.  So far, there's no evidence that Pearce and his ilk have any such wisdom.

More on the Horowitz awards/Restoration Weekend here, courtesy the Canadian blog Enormous Thriving Plants.

BrewerCare Body Count: 1

From KTAR -

After battling Leukemia for the past year, Mark Price has passed away at a Valley hospital from chemotherapy complications.


Price, whose story had been followed nationally, had found an anonymous donor to privately pay for the more than $200,000 needed for a bone marrow transplant after the new budget cuts for Arizona's Medicaid program eliminated coverage for many types of transplants.

Sad to say, there will probably be many more to come.

My condolences go out to Mr. Price's friends and family...

Light blogging for the foreseeable future...

Due to a couple of self-assigned research projects, blogging activity will be light over the next few weeks, though not nonexistent.  Expect coverage of the process to constitute the next redistricting commission and the upcoming session of the legislature. 

And if any of AZ's electeds lodges one of his feet in his mouth (not that such a thing could *ever* happen ;) )...

A little light post-dinner* reading...

* = I was going to make the title of this one "A little light post-tryptophan-induced-coma reading" but decided that would be too long... :)

...From the Mitchell (S.D.) Republic, a piece about a state Democratic Party that was hit even harder in this month's election than the Arizona Democratic Party -

George McGovern says the South Dakota Democratic Party can become competitive again with the right approach and plenty of effort.

McGovern, who has a Mitchell residence, has an idea how to do it: Follow the playbook he devised more than a half century ago.

He was the executive secretary of the South Dakota Democratic Party in the 1950s when the Democrats were in worse condition than they are now.

When he took the reins of the party in 1953, the party was at its nadir. Democrats were outnumbered 108-2 in the Legislature and held no statewide offices.

One of the people quoted later in the article opines that money is the only significant factor in elections in the 21st Century and that grassroots organizing is overrated.

I disagree - lack of money may lose elections, but money doesn't win them - votes do.

...A different (Republican) take on the grassroots organizing model of the Democrats - it may not have prevented this year's electoral carnage, but it may have served to minimize the damage - from The Explorer (AZ).

...Sarah Palin showcases her willful ignorance of the world on Glenn Beck's radio show.  Of course, it being the *Glenn Beck" show, her IQ could reach into the high single digits and still elevate the intellectual level there...

GUILTY

Tom Delay, one of the two men most associated with the Republican corruption scandals of the early and mid-2000s (the other being lobbyist/convict Jack Abramoff), was convicted today on money laundering charges in Texas.

From CNN -

A Texas jury on Wednesday convicted former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay on charges of illegally funneling corporate money to help elect GOP candidates to the Texas Legislature.


DeLay was found guilty of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering, court bailiff Gilbert Soto said. He was accused of funneling $190,000 to help elect Republicans to the state House and Senate in 2002.

He probably won't get the maximum sentence, which would be more than 100 years in prison, but it's heartening to see that justice was done.  If rather slowly.

Anyone got a guess on how many members of the new R majority in the U.S. House *won't* learn lesson?

Arizona is picking up where the rest of the country is slacking off...

...unfortunately for Arizonans, this isn't a good thing...

From the Phoenix New Times -

Joe Arpaio, Russell Pearce and Jan Brewer's Arizona: Hate Crime Stats Climb

As if you need more proof that Arizona is the "state of hate," look no further than the FBI's recently released hate crime report.


From 2008 to 2009, Arizona's number of reported hate crimes increased by more than 18.3 percent. This is up over the year prior, 2007 to 2008, which saw a 14.9 percent increase in hate crimes statewide.

The numbers themselves show the creep upward. In 2007, there were 161 incidents reported in Arizona; in 2008, 185; in 2009, 219. This bucks the national trend, which shows reported hate crime incidents declining nationwide.

Most of the data is pre-SB1070, but well into the rise of nativism as a political force in Arizona. 

By contrast, Texas (just about as nutty as AZ) reported 262 hate crimes, approximately 50% more than Arizona.

Of course, Texas has a population that is more than 400% more than Arizona's.

Yippee.

The FBI finally moving in on banksters...

From ABC News -

The FBI has raided three hedge funds, part of a widening investigation of suspicions of pervasive insider trading in the $1.7 trillion hedge fund industry.


The funds include Diamondback Capital Management LLC and Level Global Investors LP, two Connecticut funds run by former managers of Steven Cohen's SAC Capital Advisors.

The third fund is Boston-based Loch Capital Management, a person familiar with the raid said. Loch has had close ties with a witness who pleaded guilty in a separate insider trading probe that centers on hedge fund Galleon Group.


The raids come as federal prosecutors prepare to unveil a series of new insider trading cases against hedge fund traders, consultants and Wall Street bankers, several lawyers familiar with the investigation said.

It's about time - this should have started happening long before there was even a hint of a Congressional bailout of Wall Street.

Look for the Rs in Congress to retaliate by cutting the budgets of the FBI and SEC next year...

The Arizona Republic: A return to the bad old days?

I know that not too long ago, I opined that the AZ Republic was less a "conservative" paper than a "corporate" one, dedicated to protecting the bottom lines of Big Business (not that there is much difference between the two, but it explains the reluctance of the Rep's editorial board to endorse the likes of nativists Russell Pearce and JD Hayworth during recent election cycles - their habit of turning private hatred into public policy has the side effect of shrinking the number of people looking for low wage/ no benefit jobs, driving up Big Business' labor costs).

However, it looks like the AZ Republic is returning to the its original purpose as the press release outlet for the Arizona Republican Party.

Last week, it ran a week long "investigation" of the troubles with Arizona's public pension systems, ultimately ending the series with a call to reform the system, perhaps by changing the public retirement systems in AZ to 401k-like systems, where an employee's retirement benefits are primarily based on how much they've taken out of their paychecks and put into an investment account.

Unfortunately for the Republic's editorial board/message discipline staff, such a change would require the voters of Arizona to approve a change to Arizona's constitution.  Something that may not be so easy to pull off since most Arizonans actually know a couple of public employees, whether as neighbors, friends, or family members. 

It's hard to gin up blind hatred of a group of people that folks actually know.

Hence the need for the Republic's week-long demonization of public employees and retirees.

Anyway, quotes in the articles from Kirk Adams, Republican speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, and Russell Pearce, Republican Shadow Governor president of the Arizona Senate strongly hint that they already have legislation in mind to put a question on the 2012 ballot to amend the state's constitution.

Now, it may just be a coincidence, a matter of random timing, but the agenda for next week's conference of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a right wing organization that gives industry bigwigs and lobbyists a chance to influence state legislators, is posted already.

Early on Wednesday, the first full "working" day of the conference (though it is difficult to characterize elected officials partying on the corporate tab as actually "working") is an interesting item -

Public Pension Reform Working Group  9:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.  Independence FG

Hmmmm...

...Wonder how long it will be before the Arizona Republic makes it official and puts the names of Brett Mecum and Matthew Roberts on the paper's masthead?

Mecum and Roberts are, respectively, the Executive Director and Communications Director of the Arizona Republican Party.