In spite of the best efforts of administration cheerleaders (IHT) like Jon Kyl, the people that know the state of the war best want nothing to do with it.
The ones who have a choice are just saying "no." (AP via News8Austin.com)
Even strong supporters of the war, like retired Army General Jack Keane, one of the creators of Bush' "surge" plan, are turning down the job of 'war czar.' (Baltimore Chronicle)
Of course, not everyone in the services has that same freedom of choice.
...Active duty army units will now be deployed for 15 months at a time instead of 12. (SF Chronicle)
...Troops suffering from injuries, PTSD, and other combat-related disorders and have been declared as 'unfit for duty' get sent back into combat. (Hartford Courant)
...As for the rising number of soldiers exercise the same choice as generals who have declined the 'war czar' job, the ones who decline Bush's invitation to continue to put their lives on the line in his War To Enhance Halliburton's Bottom Line?
Prosecute 'em. (International Herald Tribune)
Of course, the really desperate ones too often choose a more tragic course of action. (CBSNews.com)
Enough is enough. Bring 'em home.
A good summary of the issues facing the military in general, and servicemen and women and their families, can be found here at the website of that world-renowned radical news organization, Government Executive magazine.
Later!
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
A, ummm, "spirited" meeting of the Scottsdale City Council
...with an agenda that included an eclectic mix of gambling, Prop 207, and more than 100 angry octogenarians ready to rumble.
Oh yeah, and a LOT of campaigning for next year's council elections. :)
The first item considered that generated some heat was the eighth on the agenda. It was a rezoning request, and a simple one at that. The request itself isn't what caused debate.
Nope, the debate came about when it was learned that the applicant hadn't signed a Prop 207 waiver stating that he didn't believe that his requested changes to zoning would lower the value of his property and that he wouldn't sue the city.
Oops.
A discussion ensued between city staff, council members, and the applicant with escalating rhetoric and tones of voice.
The problem wasn't with the proposal itself - most members were ok with it, with the only real reservations concerning the effects on downtown density and traffic, not the project itself.
The big concern expressed by some councilors was the impression that they had that a waiver was mandatory before approval could be given. They were very upset at that idea.
City staff made it clear that a waiver was NOT mandatory, but the information about a waiver, or lack of one, could be considered by the council members when deciding on their votes.
It took a couple of rounds of this for that to sink in to the councilors' heads.
For his part, the applicant said that the only reason he hadn't signed it is because he had never had to sign one before and he had been told that it wasn't mandatory. He announced that, in fact, he would be happy to sign one if it meant approval of the zoning change.
That, of course, set off new concerns that he could later state that he didn't know what he was signing because he was under duress at the time and could void the waiver.
During the discussion there was a motion to continue the issue to a later date, but that was withdrawn by the maker of the motion.
Most of the people in the audience had headaches (and the room was PACKED!) before this was resolved.
In the end, the council voted to approve the change pending the receipt of a waiver. It couldn't be done immediately because the waiver had to be notarized.
The lesson learned here, more a warning actually, is to expect this issue to crop up more and more. There's nothing in Prop 207 that would prevent a property owner from asking for a zoning change and then suing the city that approved the request if the owner's plans didn't work out to his/her benefit.
These waivers may not be *legally* mandated, but in practical terms, the cities must protect themselves and their taxpayers from unnecessary litigation. The waivers are going to become standard throughout the state.
The next issue that generated some serious discussion, and the one that, before the meeting, I had thought would be the most contentious, was an application for an OTB license for a site in downtown Scottsdale.
My thought was wrong. It passed 6 - 1, with only Mayor Manross dissenting.
A number of people spoke in favor of the proposal, including the applicant and representatives from Turf Paradise and Yavapai Downs. In addition, many of the owners of neighboring businesses spoke in favor of the proposal and the applicant (he already has a restaurant/sports bar there and just wants to add OTB to the existing operation) ; the only opposition was from the property manager of a single neighbor.
The council did have a number of concerns, but those were allayed one-by-one by the applicant - the OTB operation is a "day-time" only one that shuts down by 7:30 p.m., the applicant (and the others with him in this venture) will not apply for another OTB license in south Scottsdale (from the southern border with Tempe north to Mountain View), and there's a mandatory review for renewal of the license after one year.
The mayor's opposition was rooted in her dislike for gambling in general, not just OTB.
AZ Republic coverage of this issue is here.
EV Tribune coverage here.
The fun part of the night was during consideration of a citizen petition signed by approximately 1300 residents requesting that "the Scottsdale City Council to commit to not removing homes or widening Chaparral Road."
Chaparral Road is a road that has an interchange for Loop 101 and feeds directly into the downtown area. As such, traffic flow on the road has increased greatly over the last couple of years, and with it, so has traffic congestion and related issues. Of particular concern is a stretch between Hayden and Miller.
A number of residents of the Chaparral Road area (see: petitions with 1300 sigs) are worried that the city may decide that the best solution to the congestion is to seize a number of homes in the area (55) and widen the road.
The public speakers on this issue, with one exception, spoke in strong opposition to the idea of widening Chaparral. The one exception (sorry, I didn't get his name) brought up concerns of what would happen to surrounding neighborhoods if a solution centered on just Chaparral was enacted.
He was booed and heckled.
City staff urged consideration of the issue as part of a holistic master transportation plan, one that takes such issues into consideration.
As for the council, some of them used this as an opportunity to spout campaign rhetoric.
None of the council members thought that the seizure of homes was a good option; in fact, they all had a strong distaste for that option. However, certain members opined loudly that it was the "worst" option and moved to have it taken off of the table as something that could be considered as part of the upcoming master transportation plan.
The only problem is that they didn't say...couldn't say...what options it was "worse" than. They couldn't say, because they didn't know what the other options are.
Not only was their rhetoric inflammatory, it was lazy.
Expect more of the same rhetoric as the election season draws near - while lazy, their pronouncements were rewarded by the audience with a number of rounds of applause.
The motion to remove the option of seizing homes from the list of options failed by a 3 - 4 vote.
The motion that did pass (6 -1) was one that directed city staff to come back within six weeks with some preliminary information about all of the options to address congestion in the area. This proposal brought some hoots from the audience as the residents of the Chaparral Road area wanted immediate satisfaction.
Their frustration had some merit, as this issue has been percolating for years, but expecting the City Council to make a decision without all of the relevant facts is unreasonable. What is reasonable is expecting the Council to demand those facts from city staff and to present them to the affected and interested residents of the city, and to do so in a timely manner.
This issue will crop up again in May, probably late in the month. Right now, it's tentatively scheduled for a special meeting on May 29th, but that is very much subject to change. Stay tuned.
EV Tribune coverage of the issue is here.
In other news, during the legislative update part of the agenda, which was heard by the Council and perhaps 8 audience members (dedicated geeks, we :) ), was a report on the lege's passage of HB2369 by a 31 - 27 margin. That particular bill, because of a strike-everything amendment, would preempt all municipal ordinances affecting signwalkers. Naturally, cities and towns were opposed to this bill; however, an owner of a company that provides sign walkers is well-connected to the Republican leadership in the lege.
While it did pass (barely!), the City's Intergovernmental Relations Director, Bridget Schwartz-Manock, expressed gratitude for the 'no' votes of Reps. Michele Reagan and John Kavanagh of LD8 and Reps. David Schapira and Ed Ableser of LD17. Both LDs cover parts of Scottsdale.
Now the best hope for the defeat of this really bad bill rests in the hands of the Governor. As of yesterday, Ms. Schwartz-Manock was uncertain if the Governor would veto the bill.
One last note, and it pertains to campaigning for next year's elections.
The campaigning wasn't limited to sitting Council members. Announced candidate Joel Bramoweth spoke for a bit on the Chaparral Road issue.
If Mr Bramoweth or someone who advises him reads this blog, I have one comment, and it's one I've made before: At this point in the election cycle, and in the environs of a City Council meeting, the best campaign speech is one that isn't a campaign speech; lose the showboating, stay on the topic at hand, and be brief.
At the meeting, he was brief. That's it.
In baseball, a 1 for 3 day is a good day; in speechifying, it isn't.
Of course, given that the meeting lasted for nearly 6 hours, it could be argued that if he was going to pick only one of the three marks to hit, brevity was the best choice.
:)
Tentatively scheduled for the next Council meeting on April 24th:
The SOB Ordinance Rides Again!
There's an item to "Review and solicit public comments regarding the Sexually Oriented Business (SOB) ordinance."
That one ought to be fun, though not as much fun this meeting. The people opposed to the two strip clubs in town will twist themselves into euphemistic knots to avoid using "dirty" words, and the strip clubs will send their lawyers to speak for them instead of a few of the dancers that the City Council would like to put in the unemployment line. (Damn! :) )
Later!
Oh yeah, and a LOT of campaigning for next year's council elections. :)
The first item considered that generated some heat was the eighth on the agenda. It was a rezoning request, and a simple one at that. The request itself isn't what caused debate.
Nope, the debate came about when it was learned that the applicant hadn't signed a Prop 207 waiver stating that he didn't believe that his requested changes to zoning would lower the value of his property and that he wouldn't sue the city.
Oops.
A discussion ensued between city staff, council members, and the applicant with escalating rhetoric and tones of voice.
The problem wasn't with the proposal itself - most members were ok with it, with the only real reservations concerning the effects on downtown density and traffic, not the project itself.
The big concern expressed by some councilors was the impression that they had that a waiver was mandatory before approval could be given. They were very upset at that idea.
City staff made it clear that a waiver was NOT mandatory, but the information about a waiver, or lack of one, could be considered by the council members when deciding on their votes.
It took a couple of rounds of this for that to sink in to the councilors' heads.
For his part, the applicant said that the only reason he hadn't signed it is because he had never had to sign one before and he had been told that it wasn't mandatory. He announced that, in fact, he would be happy to sign one if it meant approval of the zoning change.
That, of course, set off new concerns that he could later state that he didn't know what he was signing because he was under duress at the time and could void the waiver.
During the discussion there was a motion to continue the issue to a later date, but that was withdrawn by the maker of the motion.
Most of the people in the audience had headaches (and the room was PACKED!) before this was resolved.
In the end, the council voted to approve the change pending the receipt of a waiver. It couldn't be done immediately because the waiver had to be notarized.
The lesson learned here, more a warning actually, is to expect this issue to crop up more and more. There's nothing in Prop 207 that would prevent a property owner from asking for a zoning change and then suing the city that approved the request if the owner's plans didn't work out to his/her benefit.
These waivers may not be *legally* mandated, but in practical terms, the cities must protect themselves and their taxpayers from unnecessary litigation. The waivers are going to become standard throughout the state.
The next issue that generated some serious discussion, and the one that, before the meeting, I had thought would be the most contentious, was an application for an OTB license for a site in downtown Scottsdale.
My thought was wrong. It passed 6 - 1, with only Mayor Manross dissenting.
A number of people spoke in favor of the proposal, including the applicant and representatives from Turf Paradise and Yavapai Downs. In addition, many of the owners of neighboring businesses spoke in favor of the proposal and the applicant (he already has a restaurant/sports bar there and just wants to add OTB to the existing operation) ; the only opposition was from the property manager of a single neighbor.
The council did have a number of concerns, but those were allayed one-by-one by the applicant - the OTB operation is a "day-time" only one that shuts down by 7:30 p.m., the applicant (and the others with him in this venture) will not apply for another OTB license in south Scottsdale (from the southern border with Tempe north to Mountain View), and there's a mandatory review for renewal of the license after one year.
The mayor's opposition was rooted in her dislike for gambling in general, not just OTB.
AZ Republic coverage of this issue is here.
EV Tribune coverage here.
The fun part of the night was during consideration of a citizen petition signed by approximately 1300 residents requesting that "the Scottsdale City Council to commit to not removing homes or widening Chaparral Road."
Chaparral Road is a road that has an interchange for Loop 101 and feeds directly into the downtown area. As such, traffic flow on the road has increased greatly over the last couple of years, and with it, so has traffic congestion and related issues. Of particular concern is a stretch between Hayden and Miller.
A number of residents of the Chaparral Road area (see: petitions with 1300 sigs) are worried that the city may decide that the best solution to the congestion is to seize a number of homes in the area (55) and widen the road.
The public speakers on this issue, with one exception, spoke in strong opposition to the idea of widening Chaparral. The one exception (sorry, I didn't get his name) brought up concerns of what would happen to surrounding neighborhoods if a solution centered on just Chaparral was enacted.
He was booed and heckled.
City staff urged consideration of the issue as part of a holistic master transportation plan, one that takes such issues into consideration.
As for the council, some of them used this as an opportunity to spout campaign rhetoric.
None of the council members thought that the seizure of homes was a good option; in fact, they all had a strong distaste for that option. However, certain members opined loudly that it was the "worst" option and moved to have it taken off of the table as something that could be considered as part of the upcoming master transportation plan.
The only problem is that they didn't say...couldn't say...what options it was "worse" than. They couldn't say, because they didn't know what the other options are.
Not only was their rhetoric inflammatory, it was lazy.
Expect more of the same rhetoric as the election season draws near - while lazy, their pronouncements were rewarded by the audience with a number of rounds of applause.
The motion to remove the option of seizing homes from the list of options failed by a 3 - 4 vote.
The motion that did pass (6 -1) was one that directed city staff to come back within six weeks with some preliminary information about all of the options to address congestion in the area. This proposal brought some hoots from the audience as the residents of the Chaparral Road area wanted immediate satisfaction.
Their frustration had some merit, as this issue has been percolating for years, but expecting the City Council to make a decision without all of the relevant facts is unreasonable. What is reasonable is expecting the Council to demand those facts from city staff and to present them to the affected and interested residents of the city, and to do so in a timely manner.
This issue will crop up again in May, probably late in the month. Right now, it's tentatively scheduled for a special meeting on May 29th, but that is very much subject to change. Stay tuned.
EV Tribune coverage of the issue is here.
In other news, during the legislative update part of the agenda, which was heard by the Council and perhaps 8 audience members (dedicated geeks, we :) ), was a report on the lege's passage of HB2369 by a 31 - 27 margin. That particular bill, because of a strike-everything amendment, would preempt all municipal ordinances affecting signwalkers. Naturally, cities and towns were opposed to this bill; however, an owner of a company that provides sign walkers is well-connected to the Republican leadership in the lege.
While it did pass (barely!), the City's Intergovernmental Relations Director, Bridget Schwartz-Manock, expressed gratitude for the 'no' votes of Reps. Michele Reagan and John Kavanagh of LD8 and Reps. David Schapira and Ed Ableser of LD17. Both LDs cover parts of Scottsdale.
Now the best hope for the defeat of this really bad bill rests in the hands of the Governor. As of yesterday, Ms. Schwartz-Manock was uncertain if the Governor would veto the bill.
One last note, and it pertains to campaigning for next year's elections.
The campaigning wasn't limited to sitting Council members. Announced candidate Joel Bramoweth spoke for a bit on the Chaparral Road issue.
If Mr Bramoweth or someone who advises him reads this blog, I have one comment, and it's one I've made before: At this point in the election cycle, and in the environs of a City Council meeting, the best campaign speech is one that isn't a campaign speech; lose the showboating, stay on the topic at hand, and be brief.
At the meeting, he was brief. That's it.
In baseball, a 1 for 3 day is a good day; in speechifying, it isn't.
Of course, given that the meeting lasted for nearly 6 hours, it could be argued that if he was going to pick only one of the three marks to hit, brevity was the best choice.
:)
Tentatively scheduled for the next Council meeting on April 24th:
The SOB Ordinance Rides Again!
There's an item to "Review and solicit public comments regarding the Sexually Oriented Business (SOB) ordinance."
That one ought to be fun, though not as much fun this meeting. The people opposed to the two strip clubs in town will twist themselves into euphemistic knots to avoid using "dirty" words, and the strip clubs will send their lawyers to speak for them instead of a few of the dancers that the City Council would like to put in the unemployment line. (Damn! :) )
Later!
Monday, April 09, 2007
Senator Karen Johnson's (R-LD18) daughter killed
I don't usually have many good things to say about state Sen. Karen Johnson...ok, I *never* have good things to say about her, but some things supercede partisanship and snarkiness.
She and her family have my condolences on the death (EV Trib) of her daughter, Kimberly Sue Harris, in a car accident this weekend.
Funeral arrangements are pending.
The Plugged In piece from the AZ Rep is here.
She and her family have my condolences on the death (EV Trib) of her daughter, Kimberly Sue Harris, in a car accident this weekend.
Funeral arrangements are pending.
The Plugged In piece from the AZ Rep is here.
Sunday, April 08, 2007
LD17 Legislators in the news...
It's been a couple of weeks since the last one of these, so it's time for a new one. Plus there's actually some MSM love for the LD17 folks to report about. :)
Rep. Ed Ableser -
...From this week's Political Insider in the AZ Rep:
...In a letter to the editor published in Saturday's AZ Rep, state Sen. Jim Waring (R-LD7) took issue with Rep. Ableser's vote (as well as those of Democratic Reps. Tom Prezelski and Steve Farley) against harsher prison sentences for DUI offenders.
...He was also mentioned in an AZ Daily Star article concerning the House's passage of a bill legalizing the reconstruction of Summerhaven, a community in a forest on Mt. Lemmon that has twice been destroyed by fire. For reconstruction to proceed, legislation is needed to waive legal requirements for an assured water supply.
Rep. Ableser argued for some restrictions, but those were defeated.
From the article:
...Ed was also mentioned in an April 3rd article from KTAR.com on the differences between the Democrats' and the Republicans' ideas for addressing gang activity in Arizona.
To summarize -
Republicans - Longer prison sentences, aka "Round 'em up and lock 'em up. For a verrrrry long time"
Democrats - Address some of the underlying reasons that people join a gang, aka "Teach gang members the skills needed to survive in society."
From the article:
Rep. David Schapira -
...He was quoted in an April 5th article in the AZ Daily Wildcat (U of A's paper) about a march by students for more financial aid.
From the article:
...In an AZ Rep article, Rep. Schapira was also mentioned as one of the signatories of a letter from some legislators to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors asking for an investigation of Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas for his office's release of an undocumented immigrant who later murdered his cousin.
...An EV Tribune article about the lege's Republican leadership plan to fight a federal judge's decision that the state still isn't adequately funding English language learner (ELL) classes.
aka - "the Flores case".
From the article:
...His latest column was published in the Tempe community edition of the AZ Rep. He used it to take the Republican leadership in the legislature to task for tactics they use to suppress dissent and criticism in the lege.
From the column:
The entire column is a great read; in fact, when combined with Rep. Steve Farley's weekly email updates, they present an informative insider's view of the workings of the legislature. I strongly recommend signing up for Farley's email list.
Sen. Meg Burton-Cahill had a quiet couple of weeks in terms of MSM coverage.
Note: The Senate and the House play each other in a softball game on Tuesday at the Pera Club in Tempe. Scheduled start time (according to the lege's website) is 5:00 p.m.
Later!
Rep. Ed Ableser -
...From this week's Political Insider in the AZ Rep:
Young legislator gets straight up with older dudes . . . Rep. Ed Ableser, D-Tempe, is one cool dude. As one of the youngest members of the Legislature (age 29), he brings a certain street cred to the usually staid body.
Witness his verbal displays during a caucus meeting Tuesday: He talked about "capping" people when discussing a gun bill and sent a "shout out" to Rep. Ray Barnes for his work on an air-quality bill.
...In a letter to the editor published in Saturday's AZ Rep, state Sen. Jim Waring (R-LD7) took issue with Rep. Ableser's vote (as well as those of Democratic Reps. Tom Prezelski and Steve Farley) against harsher prison sentences for DUI offenders.
...He was also mentioned in an AZ Daily Star article concerning the House's passage of a bill legalizing the reconstruction of Summerhaven, a community in a forest on Mt. Lemmon that has twice been destroyed by fire. For reconstruction to proceed, legislation is needed to waive legal requirements for an assured water supply.
Rep. Ableser argued for some restrictions, but those were defeated.
From the article:
Ableser sought to add a requirement that the exemption would be allowed only if the county has adopted a specific building code for the "wildland-urban interface" designed to mitigate the damage from wildfire "basically to protect themselves from this upcoming fire season and future wildfires."
But Rep. Jonathan Paton, R-Tucson, whose district includes Summerhaven, said the requirement is unnecessary.
Paton also led the battle against a second Ableser proposal to grant the exemption, but just once. "If you want to rebuild after a second wildfire ravages your community, that probably is telling you something that maybe you're not supposed to be building in one of the deadliest areas that's prone to wildfire," Ableser said.
...Ed was also mentioned in an April 3rd article from KTAR.com on the differences between the Democrats' and the Republicans' ideas for addressing gang activity in Arizona.
To summarize -
Republicans - Longer prison sentences, aka "Round 'em up and lock 'em up. For a verrrrry long time"
Democrats - Address some of the underlying reasons that people join a gang, aka "Teach gang members the skills needed to survive in society."
From the article:
Tempe's Ed Ableser supports more funding for helping gang members when they're released from prison. "Prisoners that will be released within six months and giving them social skills, working on job integration, and job skills and job training, even job placement."
Rep. David Schapira -
...He was quoted in an April 5th article in the AZ Daily Wildcat (U of A's paper) about a march by students for more financial aid.
From the article:
Several lawmakers spoke out at the event, including Rep. David Schapira, D-Tempe, who is a former Arizona State University and Northern Arizona University student and also brought a megaphone to help students chant.
"Financial aid is extremely important," Schapira said. "I see it as one of my biggest jobs down here to fight for affordable higher education."
...In an AZ Rep article, Rep. Schapira was also mentioned as one of the signatories of a letter from some legislators to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors asking for an investigation of Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas for his office's release of an undocumented immigrant who later murdered his cousin.
...An EV Tribune article about the lege's Republican leadership plan to fight a federal judge's decision that the state still isn't adequately funding English language learner (ELL) classes.
aka - "the Flores case".
From the article:
They pointed out the lawsuit was filed in 1992, and it has been seven years since another federal judge first ruled the state isn’t meeting its obligations.
Rep. David Schapira, D-Tempe, said failure to provide more funds for English instruction programs hurts more than students who come to school speaking another language. He said school districts, which must make these students proficient, have been robbing money from other programs.
For example, he said Tempe Union High School District is weighing whether to stop offering special programs for "gifted" students.
"We know it's extremely important to make sure that our best and brightest students are educated and prepared to become leaders of this country someday," Schapira said. "Those kids ... are suffering."
...His latest column was published in the Tempe community edition of the AZ Rep. He used it to take the Republican leadership in the legislature to task for tactics they use to suppress dissent and criticism in the lege.
From the column:
...We elect these types of leaders, the charismatic and well-spoken communicators, but passion is not rewarded at the Legislature. When members of the Legislature stand up to voice their concerns and the concerns of their constituents, they are commonly chastised and told to hold their tongues.
{snip}
My fellow representative from District 17, Ed Ableser, is commonly a victim of such censorship. He is known for being very outspoken on important issues like mental health, higher education and criminal law.
When he speaks out on these issues at the Legislature, he is often stymied or cut short by other legislators.
The entire column is a great read; in fact, when combined with Rep. Steve Farley's weekly email updates, they present an informative insider's view of the workings of the legislature. I strongly recommend signing up for Farley's email list.
Sen. Meg Burton-Cahill had a quiet couple of weeks in terms of MSM coverage.
Note: The Senate and the House play each other in a softball game on Tuesday at the Pera Club in Tempe. Scheduled start time (according to the lege's website) is 5:00 p.m.
Later!
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Jack, Jack, Jack...what are we to do with you?
Edit on 4/5 -
See below for Sen. Harper's side of this from a guest post at the Sonoran Alliance. Obviously, he's unrepentant about his actions yesterday.
As noted by Tedski at Rum, Romanism,and Rebellion and by Mary Jo Pitzl at the AZ Rep's Plugged In (or at least, at what's left of it), Sen. Jack Harper (R-Surprise!) was running off at the mouth today during a hearing of the joint committee investigating the conditions at the Arizona State Veterans Home.
From the Plugged In report -
While many observers were shocked at Harper's behavior, it was no surprise for anyone who has ever attended or watched a Senate Government Committee hearing chaired by Harper.
[Note: check out AZ Capitol Television or the Lege's video archive of committee hearings. I recommend the 3/19 hearing of the Senate Government Committee to see Harper in all of his glory.]
He is consistently rude and disrespectful to witnesses, frequently using the tactic of asking a loaded or irrelevant question and then cutting off the witness before an response can be made.
Today was nothing new; he just had a larger-than-usual audience for his antics.
Heartening was the response by many of his legislative colleagues, even many Republicans.
In the House floor session later in the day, Republican Reps. Paton, Nelson (co-chair of the joint committee), Stump and McComish rose to express their disapproval of Harper's behavior, as did Democratic Rep. Ben Miranda.
Over in the Senate, Democratic Senator Richard Miranda rose take issue with Harper's behavior, equating it to the tactics of red-baiting by Sen. Joe McCarthy where he (McCarthy) engaged in character assassination by innuendo.
Harper rose to his own defense, saying that sometimes questions lead to unexpected places and [with a saccharin sweet voice] that he didn't know before today that Mr. Stephens had been involved or that Janet Napolitano had been his attorney when he was cleared.
"Didn't know?"
Like hell.
He didn't help himself when he admonished the Democratic members of the joint committee for displaying anger over his tactics.
After Harper spoke, and his saddle partner from the Government Committee, Sen. Blendu, rose to make a wishy-washy "don't want to offend my buddy but don't want to seem like I approve either" comment, Senator Ron Gould rose to defend...
...Joe McCarthy.
Ouch.
Note: Tedski has been doing great work documenting Harper's recent bouts of verbal diarrhea, including blaming *U.S.* Rep. Harry Mitchell for the conditions at the *Arizona* Veterans Home. His pieces can be found here, here, here, and here.
Some of my previous pieces featuring Harper can be found here and here.
One really good thing about all this??
Right now, Jack Harper is the face and voice of the Arizona Republican Party.
God, I wish the 2008 elections were today. :)
Continuing edit:
If you want to read his entire statement, please follow the above link to Sonoran Alliance.
I'll just post one quote from his closing (emphasis mine):
So then why did you do it, and why are you so unapologetic about it, Senator Harper?
I caught part of today's hearing on AzCT. He referred to his question to Mr. Stephens as an innocent, "random" question and, as with the Sonoran Alliance post, continued to criticize the Democratic members of the joint committee for their behavior while proclaiming that his own was purely innocent.
Harper's still clueless as to how much he has embarrassed himself, his district, and the legislature. Nor does he seem to have *any* concern for the disservice he did to the state home's elderly veterans with his cheaply partisan witch-hunt tactics and contempt for the witnesses.
End edit.
Later!
See below for Sen. Harper's side of this from a guest post at the Sonoran Alliance. Obviously, he's unrepentant about his actions yesterday.
As noted by Tedski at Rum, Romanism,and Rebellion and by Mary Jo Pitzl at the AZ Rep's Plugged In (or at least, at what's left of it), Sen. Jack Harper (R-Surprise!) was running off at the mouth today during a hearing of the joint committee investigating the conditions at the Arizona State Veterans Home.
From the Plugged In report -
Harper closed the hearing by eliciting testimony from Alan Stephens, the governor's co-chief of staff, about his involvement in the AzScam political-corruption scandal in 1991. Stephens was exonerated, but Harper cut him off before he could finish his response.
While many observers were shocked at Harper's behavior, it was no surprise for anyone who has ever attended or watched a Senate Government Committee hearing chaired by Harper.
[Note: check out AZ Capitol Television or the Lege's video archive of committee hearings. I recommend the 3/19 hearing of the Senate Government Committee to see Harper in all of his glory.]
He is consistently rude and disrespectful to witnesses, frequently using the tactic of asking a loaded or irrelevant question and then cutting off the witness before an response can be made.
Today was nothing new; he just had a larger-than-usual audience for his antics.
Heartening was the response by many of his legislative colleagues, even many Republicans.
In the House floor session later in the day, Republican Reps. Paton, Nelson (co-chair of the joint committee), Stump and McComish rose to express their disapproval of Harper's behavior, as did Democratic Rep. Ben Miranda.
Over in the Senate, Democratic Senator Richard Miranda rose take issue with Harper's behavior, equating it to the tactics of red-baiting by Sen. Joe McCarthy where he (McCarthy) engaged in character assassination by innuendo.
Harper rose to his own defense, saying that sometimes questions lead to unexpected places and [with a saccharin sweet voice] that he didn't know before today that Mr. Stephens had been involved or that Janet Napolitano had been his attorney when he was cleared.
"Didn't know?"
Like hell.
He didn't help himself when he admonished the Democratic members of the joint committee for displaying anger over his tactics.
After Harper spoke, and his saddle partner from the Government Committee, Sen. Blendu, rose to make a wishy-washy "don't want to offend my buddy but don't want to seem like I approve either" comment, Senator Ron Gould rose to defend...
...Joe McCarthy.
Ouch.
Note: Tedski has been doing great work documenting Harper's recent bouts of verbal diarrhea, including blaming *U.S.* Rep. Harry Mitchell for the conditions at the *Arizona* Veterans Home. His pieces can be found here, here, here, and here.
Some of my previous pieces featuring Harper can be found here and here.
One really good thing about all this??
Right now, Jack Harper is the face and voice of the Arizona Republican Party.
God, I wish the 2008 elections were today. :)
Continuing edit:
If you want to read his entire statement, please follow the above link to Sonoran Alliance.
I'll just post one quote from his closing (emphasis mine):
Now after the dust has settled, reporters have opined that I should have known Alan Stephans’ history in the AZScam scandal. I have better things to do than to gossip about the past of the Governor’s staff, specifically, looking out for the veterans.
So then why did you do it, and why are you so unapologetic about it, Senator Harper?
I caught part of today's hearing on AzCT. He referred to his question to Mr. Stephens as an innocent, "random" question and, as with the Sonoran Alliance post, continued to criticize the Democratic members of the joint committee for their behavior while proclaiming that his own was purely innocent.
Harper's still clueless as to how much he has embarrassed himself, his district, and the legislature. Nor does he seem to have *any* concern for the disservice he did to the state home's elderly veterans with his cheaply partisan witch-hunt tactics and contempt for the witnesses.
End edit.
Later!
It's not irony anymore...
Out of respect for the efforts of others who also write blogs, I don't normally repost their work, but this one is too good to pass up. And the author was reposting the work himself, also because it was too good to pass up.
And I mean *good* in a good way, not in a sarcastic way. :)
From bush failed, via kirkcaraway.com in Nevada -
[If you think that the author cherry-picked his quotes, the above link contains the entire speech in question from his official campaign archive.]
I especially like the parts about the VA.
Later!
And I mean *good* in a good way, not in a sarcastic way. :)
From bush failed, via kirkcaraway.com in Nevada -
George W. Bush VFW Speech - August 21, 2000
(Please send this to your House & Senate Representatives)According to his own words, Bush has failed:
"The facts are stark and the facts are real. . . Our men and women in uniform love their country more than their comfort. They have never failed us, and we must not fail them. But the best intentions and the highest morale are undermined by back-to-back deployments, poor pay, shortages of spare parts and equipment, and rapidly declining readiness."
". . .these are signs of a military in decline and we must do something about it. The reasons are clear. Lack of equipment and material. Undermaning of units. Overdeployment. Not enough time for family. Soldiers who are on food stamps, and soldiers who are poorly housed. Dick Cheney and I have a simple message today for our men and women in uniform, their parents, their loved ones, their supporters: Help is on the way!"
"A generation shaped by Vietnam must remember the lessons of Vietnam. When America uses force in the world, the cause must be just, the goal must be clear, and the victory must be overwhelming."
"To build morale in today’s United States military we must keep faith with those who have worn the uniform in the past. We must keep faith with America’s veterans. . . And keeping faith also means giving our veterans first-rate health care and treating the veterans with dignity. . . So chaotic is the process there is now a backlog of nearly one half-million claims. This is no way to treat any citizen, much less a veteran of our armed forces. The veterans health-care system and the claims process will be modernized, so that claims are handled in a fair and friendly way."
"In my Administration, the Department of Veterans Affairs will act as an advocate for veterans seeking benefit claims, not act as an adversary. Veterans who once stood in the line of fire to protect our freedom should not have to stand in the line of a bureaucracy that is unwilling to help them in their claims."
—George W. Bush VFW Speech - August 21, 2000
[If you think that the author cherry-picked his quotes, the above link contains the entire speech in question from his official campaign archive.]
I especially like the parts about the VA.
Later!
Last night's LD17 Democrats meeting
A brief summary...
...Todd Landfried, the Executive Director of the Maricopa County Democratic Party gave a presentation about the state of MCDP and its goals for the upcoming election cycle. He's been giving this presentation to the various LDs throughout the county; it was substantially the same as the one he gave to LD8 in February. That write-up is here.
...On May 24, the LD17 Dems' Issues Committee will be putting on a health care forum at the Granite Reef Senior Center in Scottsdale with speakers from a number of groups making presentations. The public is invited to this non-partisan forum; I'll have more details as we get closer to the date of the event.
Genie Zavaleta and Danny Rodriguez gave a presentation on the DREAM Act, recently reintroduced in Congress (HR1275). In short, the bill, if passed and signed into law, would allow the U.S.-raised children of illegal immigrants to receive education benefits, including state residency status for tuition purposes. The bill would also help such children gain permanent residency immigration status if they had completed at least 2 years of higher education or served at least 2 years in the military.
Note: The STRIVE Act, HR 1645, is a more comprehensive act that incorporates the DREAM Act but also covers much more.
Note2: The DREAM Act has been introduced in the Senate as S774.
The DREAM Act is rooted in the plight of the "Wilson 4"; four students from AZ that were brought to the U.S. as small children, who, after doing standout work in high school and being invited to attend a solar-powered boat competition in New York in 2002, were detained when they asked about viewing Niagra Falls from the Canadian side of the border.
More Wilson 4 coverage here (NPR).
Genie and Danny urged us all to contact our Congressfolk to urge passage of the DREAM Act. It should be noted that AZ Congressmen Grijalva and Pastor, as well as Senator McCain, have already signed on as cosponsors of their respective chambers' version of the Act. [Don't expect much help on this from McCain other than attaching his name to the bill - he's not in D.C. most of the time these days, anyway. :) ]
...David Schwartz, treasurer of the LD17 Dems, announced that on April 20, he and his wife Kathy will be hosting a fundraising dinner to benefit efforts to remove land mines worldwide as part of the "Night of a Thousand Dinners". I don't have contact info for him (oops. Sorry about that), but if interested, contact district chair Doug Mings at dougmings[at]gmail.com and he'll be able to put you in contact with Kathy and David.
...State Representatives David Schapira and Ed Ableser gave a brief legislative update. The highlight was the second defeat of HB2382, a bill to raise the fees charged to teachers for state-mandated tests. As I wrote last month, this bill was originally defeated on the day that Bob Mings and I shadowed Rep. Schapira. However, it was brought back two days later by Rep. Konopnicki.
It was defeated by an even greater margin the second time around. :)
...Bad news department: Laura Knaperek may be gone from the legislature, but she hasn't gone away. She's now the executive director of an organization called "United Families International." Among other things, this organization opposes UN efforts to outlaw forced marriage and gender-selective infanticide.
Interesting, if somewhat hypocritical, stances for an organization (and an ED!) that touts itself as "pro-family" and "pro-life".
Later!
...Todd Landfried, the Executive Director of the Maricopa County Democratic Party gave a presentation about the state of MCDP and its goals for the upcoming election cycle. He's been giving this presentation to the various LDs throughout the county; it was substantially the same as the one he gave to LD8 in February. That write-up is here.
...On May 24, the LD17 Dems' Issues Committee will be putting on a health care forum at the Granite Reef Senior Center in Scottsdale with speakers from a number of groups making presentations. The public is invited to this non-partisan forum; I'll have more details as we get closer to the date of the event.
Genie Zavaleta and Danny Rodriguez gave a presentation on the DREAM Act, recently reintroduced in Congress (HR1275). In short, the bill, if passed and signed into law, would allow the U.S.-raised children of illegal immigrants to receive education benefits, including state residency status for tuition purposes. The bill would also help such children gain permanent residency immigration status if they had completed at least 2 years of higher education or served at least 2 years in the military.
Note: The STRIVE Act, HR 1645, is a more comprehensive act that incorporates the DREAM Act but also covers much more.
Note2: The DREAM Act has been introduced in the Senate as S774.
The DREAM Act is rooted in the plight of the "Wilson 4"; four students from AZ that were brought to the U.S. as small children, who, after doing standout work in high school and being invited to attend a solar-powered boat competition in New York in 2002, were detained when they asked about viewing Niagra Falls from the Canadian side of the border.
More Wilson 4 coverage here (NPR).
Genie and Danny urged us all to contact our Congressfolk to urge passage of the DREAM Act. It should be noted that AZ Congressmen Grijalva and Pastor, as well as Senator McCain, have already signed on as cosponsors of their respective chambers' version of the Act. [Don't expect much help on this from McCain other than attaching his name to the bill - he's not in D.C. most of the time these days, anyway. :) ]
...David Schwartz, treasurer of the LD17 Dems, announced that on April 20, he and his wife Kathy will be hosting a fundraising dinner to benefit efforts to remove land mines worldwide as part of the "Night of a Thousand Dinners". I don't have contact info for him (oops. Sorry about that), but if interested, contact district chair Doug Mings at dougmings[at]gmail.com and he'll be able to put you in contact with Kathy and David.
...State Representatives David Schapira and Ed Ableser gave a brief legislative update. The highlight was the second defeat of HB2382, a bill to raise the fees charged to teachers for state-mandated tests. As I wrote last month, this bill was originally defeated on the day that Bob Mings and I shadowed Rep. Schapira. However, it was brought back two days later by Rep. Konopnicki.
It was defeated by an even greater margin the second time around. :)
...Bad news department: Laura Knaperek may be gone from the legislature, but she hasn't gone away. She's now the executive director of an organization called "United Families International." Among other things, this organization opposes UN efforts to outlaw forced marriage and gender-selective infanticide.
Interesting, if somewhat hypocritical, stances for an organization (and an ED!) that touts itself as "pro-family" and "pro-life".
Later!
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Keep this arrow in the quiver for the right occasion
The right occasion being a conversation with Jeff Flake, Michelle Reagan, or any other Republican who seeks to deify the almighty "private sector" or government agencies that are more dedicated to the businesses that they are supposed to regulate than they are to the people they are paid to protect (aka - US!)...
On Thursday, a federal judge ruled that a meatpacking business can conduct its own tests for mad cow disease.
Why is this significant? The federal government and other, larger, meatpacking firms OPPOSED the move.
From an AP article, via the Arkansas City Traveler (emphasis mine) -
For the record, mad cow disease, also known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy, is fatal in humans. Exposure occurs by eating the meat of infected cattle.
Both the meatpacking industry as a whole and the FDA/Department of Agriculture would rather protect company profits than human lives.
The "private sector" can do many things better than the government can.
Not the least of those things is to look out for itself to the exclusion of everyone and everything else.
Later!
On Thursday, a federal judge ruled that a meatpacking business can conduct its own tests for mad cow disease.
Why is this significant? The federal government and other, larger, meatpacking firms OPPOSED the move.
From an AP article, via the Arkansas City Traveler (emphasis mine) -
WASHINGTON -- The federal government must allow meatpackers to test their animals for mad cow disease, a federal judge ruled Thursday.
Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, a meatpacker based in Arkansas City, Kan., wants to test all of its cows for the disease, which can be fatal to humans who eat tainted beef. Larger meat companies feared that move because if Creekstone tested its meat and advertised it as safe, they could be forced to do the expensive test, too.
The Agriculture Department currently regulates the test and administers it to less than 1 percent of slaughtered cows. The department threatened Creekstone with prosecution if it tested all its animals.
{snip}
Last July, the department cut its testing by about 90 percent. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said testing should reflect ''a very, very low level'' of the disease in the United States.
{snip}
The Agriculture Department argued that widespread testing could lead to a false positive that would harm the meat industry. [Federal judge] Robertson said he was concerned by that possibility but noted that Creekstone sought to use the same test the government relies on.
For the record, mad cow disease, also known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy, is fatal in humans. Exposure occurs by eating the meat of infected cattle.
Both the meatpacking industry as a whole and the FDA/Department of Agriculture would rather protect company profits than human lives.
The "private sector" can do many things better than the government can.
Not the least of those things is to look out for itself to the exclusion of everyone and everything else.
Later!
Friday, March 30, 2007
Upcoming public appearances by Harry Mitchell
Note: This is *not* an exhaustive listing of the Congressman's schedule.
All information via press releases or web sources.
Saturday, March 31 (tomorrow), - U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell will join Attorney General Terry Goddard and the Scottsdale Police Department to fight identity theft by leading a Shred-a-Thon at 9 a.m.
Location:
Granite Reef Senior Center
1700 N. Granite Reef, Scottsdale
(NW corner of Granite Reef and McDowell)
Quote (via press release):
"Identity theft is a growing problem, and I'm proud to join forces with Attorney General Goddard and the Scottsdale Police to do something about it," said Mitchell.
Time:
Event runs from 8:00 a.m. until noon, AG Goddard and Congressman Mitchell are scheduled to speak during the 9 o'clock hour.
Sunday, April 1 - U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell will hold the first meeting of his Veterans' Advisory Council in Tempe .
Location:
Hatton Hall
34 East Seventh Street
Tempe
Quote:
"I'm proud to be working with so many great veterans and I'm looking forward to hearing what they have say about how those of us in Congress can better address their needs," said Mitchell.
Time:
1:00 p.m.
Thursday, April 12 - The Mayor/Council Breakfast in Scottsdale will feature Congressman Harry Mitchell.
Location:
Scottsdale City Hall
3939 N. Drinkwater Blvd.
Scottsdale
(NE corner of Indian School and Drinkwater)
Time:
Bagels and coffee at 7:30 a.m., program at 8:00 a.m.
More updates as they become available.
All information via press releases or web sources.
Saturday, March 31 (tomorrow), - U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell will join Attorney General Terry Goddard and the Scottsdale Police Department to fight identity theft by leading a Shred-a-Thon at 9 a.m.
Location:
Granite Reef Senior Center
1700 N. Granite Reef, Scottsdale
(NW corner of Granite Reef and McDowell)
Quote (via press release):
"Identity theft is a growing problem, and I'm proud to join forces with Attorney General Goddard and the Scottsdale Police to do something about it," said Mitchell.
Time:
Event runs from 8:00 a.m. until noon, AG Goddard and Congressman Mitchell are scheduled to speak during the 9 o'clock hour.
Sunday, April 1 - U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell will hold the first meeting of his Veterans' Advisory Council in Tempe .
Location:
Hatton Hall
34 East Seventh Street
Tempe
Quote:
"I'm proud to be working with so many great veterans and I'm looking forward to hearing what they have say about how those of us in Congress can better address their needs," said Mitchell.
Time:
1:00 p.m.
Thursday, April 12 - The Mayor/Council Breakfast in Scottsdale will feature Congressman Harry Mitchell.
Location:
Scottsdale City Hall
3939 N. Drinkwater Blvd.
Scottsdale
(NE corner of Indian School and Drinkwater)
Time:
Bagels and coffee at 7:30 a.m., program at 8:00 a.m.
More updates as they become available.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
George W. Bush more respected...
...than the Arizona Legislature.
Thanks to Sonoran Sam for the heads-up on this in a comment on Tedski's Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion.
From a press release from the Behavior Research Center's Rocky Mountain Poll:
Percentage of those Arizonans polled who believe that George W. Bush is doing an excellent or good job -
32%
Percentage of those Arizonans polled who believe that the Arizona legislature is doing an excellent or good job -
28%
Somehow, I can't see either Bush or the Republican leadership at the lege being happy about this comparison.
Meanwhile, in Arizona...
OK, so maybe it won't bother the Reps all that much. :)
Note: Any line marked by a "*" is pure satire and the product of the author's imagination; to the best of the author's knowledge, the above conversations have not taken place, nor is there any evidence that the Republican leadership in the lege has any knowledge of Snoopy or dancing.
Later!
Thanks to Sonoran Sam for the heads-up on this in a comment on Tedski's Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion.
From a press release from the Behavior Research Center's Rocky Mountain Poll:
Percentage of those Arizonans polled who believe that George W. Bush is doing an excellent or good job -
32%
Percentage of those Arizonans polled who believe that the Arizona legislature is doing an excellent or good job -
28%
Somehow, I can't see either Bush or the Republican leadership at the lege being happy about this comparison.
*Low-level White House staffer: "Mr. President, great news! Things are looking up! The latest poll shows that you are even more well-respected than the legislature in Arizona!"
*President: "That is good news, but I'm going to wait for next week's poll, the one that checks to see if I'm finally more popular than a root canal, before I start crowing about my growing popularity."
Meanwhile, in Arizona...
*Republican leader #1: "Wow!! Look at this! The people really love us! We're only four points less popular than the President!"
*Republican leader #2: "Eat that, Janet! We RULE!!"
*The sane Republican in the lege: "Umm...Guys? Bush has run the highest deficits in American history; led us into a seemingly endless war, a war based on lies; has multiple advisers under indictment or investigation; and is known for routinely disregarding the rule of law. He's historically unpopular, and yet he *still* garners more respect than we do."
*Republican leaders #1 and #2 look at each other for a moment, then start doing the Snoopy dance and singing "We're only four points behind the President!!"
OK, so maybe it won't bother the Reps all that much. :)
Note: Any line marked by a "*" is pure satire and the product of the author's imagination; to the best of the author's knowledge, the above conversations have not taken place, nor is there any evidence that the Republican leadership in the lege has any knowledge of Snoopy or dancing.
Later!
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Reminder - the Scott Ritter event has been rescheduled for Saturday
Previously, it was scheduled for Thursday, but due to a call to jury duty, Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector and author of Target Iran, cannot appear until Saturday evening to discuss his book.
New date: Saturday, March 31
Time: 6:30 p.m. reception; 7:00 p.m. program start.
Location: New Vision Spiritual Growth Center, 9659 N. Hayden Road, (southeast corner of Hayden & Mountain View inside the Mountview Plaza).
Contact: 480-991-7548 for more details or to reserve a spot.
Later!
New date: Saturday, March 31
Time: 6:30 p.m. reception; 7:00 p.m. program start.
Location: New Vision Spiritual Growth Center, 9659 N. Hayden Road, (southeast corner of Hayden & Mountain View inside the Mountview Plaza).
Contact: 480-991-7548 for more details or to reserve a spot.
Later!
OK. I'm sold on the idea that we should immediately withdraw from Iraq.
Before the events of this week, I felt that maybe we should stay there for a while to try to stabilize that which we had destabilized.
Call it the "We broke it; we fix it" principle.
Some might argue that the tribal, sectarian, and and ethnic conflicts that are fuelling the civil war in Iraq existed long before Bush ordered the United States' invasion of Iraq; in fact, those conflicts existed even before there *was* a United States to conduct such an invasion.
That argument is valid, but, simply put, even if the kindling for the inferno in Iraq already existed, we are the ones who put a match to it.
And the Bush administration's efforts to stabilize the situation in Iraq after they destabilized it? They're like someone flicking a cigarette out of a speeding car, starting a fast-moving brushfire, and trying to put out the fire by smothering it in gasoline.
Events this week just highlight this.
First, on Tuesday, twin truck bombs in commercial areas of the city of Tal Afar killed 80 or more Shiites.
In response, on Wednesday, Shiite police officers and militia members in Tal Afar executed more than 70 Sunni men and kidnapped dozens more.
"Police officers"?!?!? In most societies, the police (or their equivalent) are supposed to be a force for stability.
Not mass murderers.
At this point, withdrawing American troops may not improve the situation in Iraq; however, their presence there definitely isn't helping either. The only thing that our troops can do right now is provide to provide motivation, and targets of opportunity, for the various factions.
I would love to advocate for keeping a presence in Iraq to help with an organized rebuilding of the country (kind of a modern Marshall Plan), but the Bushies have exhibited neither the desire or the ability to make such a plan work.
Bring 'em home. 'Nuff said.
Good night!
Call it the "We broke it; we fix it" principle.
Some might argue that the tribal, sectarian, and and ethnic conflicts that are fuelling the civil war in Iraq existed long before Bush ordered the United States' invasion of Iraq; in fact, those conflicts existed even before there *was* a United States to conduct such an invasion.
That argument is valid, but, simply put, even if the kindling for the inferno in Iraq already existed, we are the ones who put a match to it.
And the Bush administration's efforts to stabilize the situation in Iraq after they destabilized it? They're like someone flicking a cigarette out of a speeding car, starting a fast-moving brushfire, and trying to put out the fire by smothering it in gasoline.
Events this week just highlight this.
First, on Tuesday, twin truck bombs in commercial areas of the city of Tal Afar killed 80 or more Shiites.
In response, on Wednesday, Shiite police officers and militia members in Tal Afar executed more than 70 Sunni men and kidnapped dozens more.
"Police officers"?!?!? In most societies, the police (or their equivalent) are supposed to be a force for stability.
Not mass murderers.
At this point, withdrawing American troops may not improve the situation in Iraq; however, their presence there definitely isn't helping either. The only thing that our troops can do right now is provide to provide motivation, and targets of opportunity, for the various factions.
I would love to advocate for keeping a presence in Iraq to help with an organized rebuilding of the country (kind of a modern Marshall Plan), but the Bushies have exhibited neither the desire or the ability to make such a plan work.
Bring 'em home. 'Nuff said.
Good night!
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
An enlightening day...
...with most of the afternoon watching the U.S. House debate HR 1401, the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007. [What can I say - I'm a geek. :) ]
The bill passed, but that was no surprise.
What was really interesting was watching the extremist wing of the Republican Party, House chapter, in action.
There were two times when the Reps' true colors showed.
...During the consideration of the Sessions amendment to HR1401, an amendment to "prohibit funds in [the] act, except those noted in Section 108, from being used by Amtrak for any of the Top 10 worst revenue losing long-distance routes as noted by its September 2006 monthly performance report."
During the debate on the amendment, Rep. Sessions named only of the routes that his amendment targeted.
Both routes mentioned specifically were New Orleans-based routes - the Sunset Limited to California and the City of New Orleans to Chicago.
You remember, the same New Orleans that was all but destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.
The same predominantly black-inhabited New Orleans that was all but depopulated by residents desperately fleeing the devastation.
A place with no reason to visit it, or any people left to leave it. Little wonder that they were two of the least-profitable routes a mere year after the most destructive natural disaster in American history.
Those routes are the ones that Rep. Sessions (R-TX) wants to leave susceptible to attack.
The amendment was defeated 130 - 299. Even a number of Republicans thought it was a bad amendment and voted against it.
...Later in the day, Peter King (R-NY) introduced an amendment that would grant immunity from lawsuits to anyone "reporting suspicious activities and mitigating terrorist threats relating to transportation security."
This one was targeted at the "flying imams" who are now suing over their removal from a flight from Minneapolis to Phoenix.
Not only did this amendment take aim at a religious minority, it did so by actually protecting bigots.
I actually don't have a problem with immunizing people who report activity that they legitimately believe to be suspicious. However, 'legitimate' suspicion is not based on someone's religion.
This amendment provides blanket immunity without regard to the basis of the suspicion.
However, the worst part of the debate occured when Bennie Thompson (D-MS) was speaking about his reservations with the amendment.
The kept interrupting him, and when he tried to continue speaking, they hooted him down.
And by "they", I mean the Republicans in the chamber.
You might ask how I know it was Republicans. Immediately after this incident, the vote on the amendment was taken. (Note: actually it was a motion to recommit with instructions to add the amendment to the underlying bill, but it means the same thing.) The counter provided by CSPAN showed that well over 100 Republicans cast their votes in the first minute of voting; less than 30 or so Democrats voted during the same time period.
Their behavior was reprehensible and uncivilized, even by their admittedly low standards.
Just because they lost the election in November doesn't mean they should act like losers.
I know that their attitudes and behaviors haven't changed much since the election. They have always targeted racial, ethnic, and religious minorities, and the economically-disadvantaged for their contempt. However, when they were in the majority, they put a smiling face on it (perhaps to help keep them in the majority).
Now it seems that their anger over the loss of majority status in the House is overwhelming their ability to maintain the facade.
The amendment passed 304-121. The underlying bill passed 299 - 124.
Note: Harry Mitchell voted for the King amendment; much as I respect and like him, I have to say that he was on the wrong side on this one.
Note2: Remember the Sessions amendment that I discussed earlier? Sessions' argument was that money shouldn't be spent on protecting the lowest revenue routes, based on the September 2006 Monthly Report from Amtrak. What he didn't mention was that for the period covered by the report, and that of the reports of October 2006 and November 2006 , the two routes he mentioned were two of the fastest growing routes in the entire system in terms of revenue.
From the reports, for Sleeper Class, change over the previous year -
September 2006, City of New Orleans, ticket revenue was up 77.5%; Sunset Limited up 163.5%. Overall Long Distance revenue was up 9.4%.
October 2006, City of New Orleans up 35.7%; Sunset Limited up 221.9%. Overall up 11.7%.
November 2006, City of New Orleans up 50.9%; Sunset Limited up 143.7%. Overall up 6.9%.
It's bad enough that he and his colleagues were trying to stick it to New Orleans and its people again; they were lazy about it; if they were going to cherry-pick statistics to make their case, at least do it in a way that isn't so easily found out.
Later!
The bill passed, but that was no surprise.
What was really interesting was watching the extremist wing of the Republican Party, House chapter, in action.
There were two times when the Reps' true colors showed.
...During the consideration of the Sessions amendment to HR1401, an amendment to "prohibit funds in [the] act, except those noted in Section 108, from being used by Amtrak for any of the Top 10 worst revenue losing long-distance routes as noted by its September 2006 monthly performance report."
During the debate on the amendment, Rep. Sessions named only of the routes that his amendment targeted.
Both routes mentioned specifically were New Orleans-based routes - the Sunset Limited to California and the City of New Orleans to Chicago.
You remember, the same New Orleans that was all but destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.
The same predominantly black-inhabited New Orleans that was all but depopulated by residents desperately fleeing the devastation.
A place with no reason to visit it, or any people left to leave it. Little wonder that they were two of the least-profitable routes a mere year after the most destructive natural disaster in American history.
Those routes are the ones that Rep. Sessions (R-TX) wants to leave susceptible to attack.
The amendment was defeated 130 - 299. Even a number of Republicans thought it was a bad amendment and voted against it.
...Later in the day, Peter King (R-NY) introduced an amendment that would grant immunity from lawsuits to anyone "reporting suspicious activities and mitigating terrorist threats relating to transportation security."
This one was targeted at the "flying imams" who are now suing over their removal from a flight from Minneapolis to Phoenix.
Not only did this amendment take aim at a religious minority, it did so by actually protecting bigots.
I actually don't have a problem with immunizing people who report activity that they legitimately believe to be suspicious. However, 'legitimate' suspicion is not based on someone's religion.
This amendment provides blanket immunity without regard to the basis of the suspicion.
However, the worst part of the debate occured when Bennie Thompson (D-MS) was speaking about his reservations with the amendment.
The kept interrupting him, and when he tried to continue speaking, they hooted him down.
And by "they", I mean the Republicans in the chamber.
You might ask how I know it was Republicans. Immediately after this incident, the vote on the amendment was taken. (Note: actually it was a motion to recommit with instructions to add the amendment to the underlying bill, but it means the same thing.) The counter provided by CSPAN showed that well over 100 Republicans cast their votes in the first minute of voting; less than 30 or so Democrats voted during the same time period.
Their behavior was reprehensible and uncivilized, even by their admittedly low standards.
Just because they lost the election in November doesn't mean they should act like losers.
I know that their attitudes and behaviors haven't changed much since the election. They have always targeted racial, ethnic, and religious minorities, and the economically-disadvantaged for their contempt. However, when they were in the majority, they put a smiling face on it (perhaps to help keep them in the majority).
Now it seems that their anger over the loss of majority status in the House is overwhelming their ability to maintain the facade.
The amendment passed 304-121. The underlying bill passed 299 - 124.
Note: Harry Mitchell voted for the King amendment; much as I respect and like him, I have to say that he was on the wrong side on this one.
Note2: Remember the Sessions amendment that I discussed earlier? Sessions' argument was that money shouldn't be spent on protecting the lowest revenue routes, based on the September 2006 Monthly Report from Amtrak. What he didn't mention was that for the period covered by the report, and that of the reports of October 2006 and November 2006 , the two routes he mentioned were two of the fastest growing routes in the entire system in terms of revenue.
From the reports, for Sleeper Class, change over the previous year -
September 2006, City of New Orleans, ticket revenue was up 77.5%; Sunset Limited up 163.5%. Overall Long Distance revenue was up 9.4%.
October 2006, City of New Orleans up 35.7%; Sunset Limited up 221.9%. Overall up 11.7%.
November 2006, City of New Orleans up 50.9%; Sunset Limited up 143.7%. Overall up 6.9%.
It's bad enough that he and his colleagues were trying to stick it to New Orleans and its people again; they were lazy about it; if they were going to cherry-pick statistics to make their case, at least do it in a way that isn't so easily found out.
Later!
Burning questions...
Still in the "short-attention span" mode here. Mostly it's a combination of being tired and having lots of potential topics... :)
...Is State Rep. Trish Groe thankful that her DUI bust happened in La Paz County, not in Maricopa County, home of "Expect the Max" and County Attorney Andrew "Kill 'em Before Anybody Can Figure Out That We Screwed Up" Thomas?
...Clifton Bennett, son of then-State Senate President Ken Bennett, got 30 days for molesting....errr.."hazing" a number of middle-school aged kids at a summer camp. Should we be happy if Rep. Groe only gets a medal?
...Does anyone else appreciate the irony of a Department of Justice employee, an aide to AG Alberto Gonzales and liason to the White House, threatening to 'take the fifth' to avoid testifying under oath before Congress? It's almost like she works for the Mob. Does that make W the capo di tutti capi and Gonzales the consigliere of the Bush Family Business?
...Does anybody in Arizona really care that "in the latest poll" Arizona Democrats prefer Hillary Clinton over the rest of the field for the nomination? We're only, what, 10 months out from the primary? Sheesh....
More later!
...Is State Rep. Trish Groe thankful that her DUI bust happened in La Paz County, not in Maricopa County, home of "Expect the Max" and County Attorney Andrew "Kill 'em Before Anybody Can Figure Out That We Screwed Up" Thomas?
...Clifton Bennett, son of then-State Senate President Ken Bennett, got 30 days for molesting....errr.."hazing" a number of middle-school aged kids at a summer camp. Should we be happy if Rep. Groe only gets a medal?
...Does anyone else appreciate the irony of a Department of Justice employee, an aide to AG Alberto Gonzales and liason to the White House, threatening to 'take the fifth' to avoid testifying under oath before Congress? It's almost like she works for the Mob. Does that make W the capo di tutti capi and Gonzales the consigliere of the Bush Family Business?
...Does anybody in Arizona really care that "in the latest poll" Arizona Democrats prefer Hillary Clinton over the rest of the field for the nomination? We're only, what, 10 months out from the primary? Sheesh....
More later!
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Time for the ol' blog to grow up a little...
As some of you know, in addition to this blog, I also contribute to another blog, Progressive Wave's AZ-05 (think: 'all Harry Mitchell, all the time'). On that site is something that heretofore has not been needed on this site. A site meter to measure traffic.
I have gotten into the habit of checking it regularly, not so much for the number of visits but for the characteristics of the visitors. One of the many things that I have learned (not that it was any surprise!) is that most of the visitors find the site through Google searches for something about Harry Mitchell or one of the issues that he has worked on (lots of hits over the Walter Reed/VA medical care mess).
On Saturday, there was a very interesting visitor. From the Visit Detail page (emphasis mine):
So who says that Bush'$ war isn't about Halliburton'$ bottom line? FYI -Kellogg Brown & Root is one of Halliburton's subsidiaries.
Now for the important question -
Anybody know a good site meter...make that a free good site meter? That's all that the blog budget can afford. :))
Later!
I have gotten into the habit of checking it regularly, not so much for the number of visits but for the characteristics of the visitors. One of the many things that I have learned (not that it was any surprise!) is that most of the visitors find the site through Google searches for something about Harry Mitchell or one of the issues that he has worked on (lots of hits over the Walter Reed/VA medical care mess).
On Saturday, there was a very interesting visitor. From the Visit Detail page (emphasis mine):
Domain Name (Unknown)
IP Address 161.51.11.# (KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT)
ISP KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT
Location
Continent: North America
Country: United States (Facts)
State: Texas
City: Houston
Lat/Long: 29.7734, -95.3201 (Map)
Language: English (United States)en-us
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Browser Internet Explorer 6.0Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0;
Windows NT 5.1; Q312461; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.1)
Javascript version 1.3
Monitor Resolution: 1024 x 768
Color Depth: 32 bits
Time of Visit Mar 24 2007 4:20:23 am
Last Page View Mar 24 2007 4:22:32 am
Visit Length 2 minutes 9 seconds
Page Views 2
Referring URL http://www.google.co...emental bill&spell=1
Search Engine google.com
Search Words congressman harry mitchell vote on supplemental bill
Visit Entry Page http://az05.progressivewave.net/
Visit Exit Page http://az05.progressivewave.net/
Out Click Harry Mitchell http://www.harrymitchellforcongress.com/
Time Zone UTC+3:00
Visitor's Time Mar 24 2007 3:20:23 pm
Visit Number 830
So who says that Bush'$ war isn't about Halliburton'$ bottom line? FYI -Kellogg Brown & Root is one of Halliburton's subsidiaries.
Now for the important question -
Anybody know a good site meter...make that a free good site meter? That's all that the blog budget can afford. :))
Later!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)