With Al Gore on The Daily Show and Raul Grijalva on The Colbert Report.
Grijalva didn't do to badly, though I'm not sure he had any idea of what he was in for with Stephen Colbert.
Does anybody know if Gore's book tour includes a stop in the Phoenix area?
Later!
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Wow - the House Democrats are just like the Scottsdale City Council
In the case of both, when they've both claimed to have 'compromised', actually they've just shamefully 'surrendered'.
If the Congressional Dems don't want to take my word for it, maybe they'll believe this guy, courtesy the International Herald Tribune -
'Nuff said.
Later!
If the Congressional Dems don't want to take my word for it, maybe they'll believe this guy, courtesy the International Herald Tribune -
Bush praises Democrats' compromise on Iraq fundingAt this point in his presidency, Congress has to realize that anything Bush likes is bad for the troops, bad for the country, and bad for the world.
President George W. Bush on Thursday praised a Democratic Party compromise on funding the war in Iraq, and he pointedly embraced the Iraq Study Group recommendations for a reduced U.S. role in the longer term.
'Nuff said.
Later!
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Reminder - Health Care Forum on Thursday, May 24
Just a quick reminder -
Tomorrow (OK, probably 'today' as you read this :) ), the District 17 Democrats will hold a Health Care Forum at the Granite Reef Senior Center in Scottsdale.
The event will be moderated by House Minority Leader Phil Lopes (D-Tucson) and will feature presenters from the AARP, UFCW Local 99, the Children's Action Alliance, and the Arizona Rural Health Association.
Information tables will be set up at 6:30 p.m.; speakers start at 7.
Directions to the Granite Reef Senior Center - Take Loop 101 to McDowell, exit onto McDowell westbound. Follow McDowell approximately 1/2 mile to Granite Reef. Turn north onto Granite Reef. The Senior Center is about 300 feet ahead on the left. Free parking is available at the Center.
Tomorrow (OK, probably 'today' as you read this :) ), the District 17 Democrats will hold a Health Care Forum at the Granite Reef Senior Center in Scottsdale.
The event will be moderated by House Minority Leader Phil Lopes (D-Tucson) and will feature presenters from the AARP, UFCW Local 99, the Children's Action Alliance, and the Arizona Rural Health Association.
Information tables will be set up at 6:30 p.m.; speakers start at 7.
Directions to the Granite Reef Senior Center - Take Loop 101 to McDowell, exit onto McDowell westbound. Follow McDowell approximately 1/2 mile to Granite Reef. Turn north onto Granite Reef. The Senior Center is about 300 feet ahead on the left. Free parking is available at the Center.
Holy Guano Batman!
I spend a lot of time gleefully criticizing conservatives when they say or do something that's repugnant; it's only fair to issue praise when one gets it right...
I actually agree with something that Robert Robb wrote! For readers who are unfamiliar with Mr. Robb's work, he's a conservative columnist for the AZ Republic. He's a 'corporate' conservative; by that I mean that most of his columns advocate for less regulation and lower/non-existent taxes on corporate activities, regardless of the nature of the activities.
For him, anything that enhances the profits of corporations is a good thing to be encouraged. Anything that doesn't help corporations is outside the purview of government and society.
Generally, when he writes about a social issue, it's through that lens.
Today, however, he wrote a column regarding capital punishment. He opposes it on the basis of the very human imperfection of criminal justice system. While instances have been fairly rare, the number of incorrectly convicted defendants in a justice system that can apply capital punishment for crimes is troubling.
From the conclusion of his column -
In what may be a first, not only do I agree with Mr. Robb (which has happened a couple of times in the past), it's for the same reasons...
I should note here that while I almost always disagree with Mr. Robb, he is, far and away, the best of the 'conservative' writers at the Rep. He always writes in a reasonable, intelligent manner and backs up his positions with facts; he may draw the wrong conclusions from those facts, but he's not a ravening ideologue.
Later!
I actually agree with something that Robert Robb wrote! For readers who are unfamiliar with Mr. Robb's work, he's a conservative columnist for the AZ Republic. He's a 'corporate' conservative; by that I mean that most of his columns advocate for less regulation and lower/non-existent taxes on corporate activities, regardless of the nature of the activities.
For him, anything that enhances the profits of corporations is a good thing to be encouraged. Anything that doesn't help corporations is outside the purview of government and society.
Generally, when he writes about a social issue, it's through that lens.
Today, however, he wrote a column regarding capital punishment. He opposes it on the basis of the very human imperfection of criminal justice system. While instances have been fairly rare, the number of incorrectly convicted defendants in a justice system that can apply capital punishment for crimes is troubling.
From the conclusion of his column -
Life without parole allows for error to be reversed.
Death, obviously, does not. Any human institution will be prone to error. The criminal justice system, as it currently operates, can hardly be argued to be less susceptible to this reality.
And for that reason, it should not be entrusted with an irreversible penalty.
In what may be a first, not only do I agree with Mr. Robb (which has happened a couple of times in the past), it's for the same reasons...
I should note here that while I almost always disagree with Mr. Robb, he is, far and away, the best of the 'conservative' writers at the Rep. He always writes in a reasonable, intelligent manner and backs up his positions with facts; he may draw the wrong conclusions from those facts, but he's not a ravening ideologue.
Later!
Short attention span musing...
...In a bit of almost prescient timing, this past Thursday night, on the same day that saw the unveiling of the latest immigration reform "plan to end all plans," the District 17 Democrats presented the award-winning documentary "Crossing Arizona."
The film highlighted facets of the immigration debate that don't usually gain much notice; it humanizes the costs of the migration phenomenon, both to the many immigrants that have died while crossing the desert and to the ranchers and other residents along their paths.
It can be easy, sometimes, to forget that there is a real cost to people on this side of the border as a result of the immigration wave; not all of the opponents are stone bigots.
Even Chris Simcox, founder of the Minutemen doesn't come across as a stone bigot.
Instead, he seems like a manipulative opportunist. Not really an improvement, that. :)
However, if you have an opportunity to watch the film, pay close attention to the words of Tom Tancredo and Terry Anderson.
They *are* stone bigots.
...Whether or not you like the film, at least it was even-handed in humanizing the effects of immigration.
In comparison, the 'reform' plan that was revealed on the same day that Crossing Arizona was screened in Tempe just corporatizes it. As near as I can tell, the only folks who like the plan belong to the Chamber of Commerce.
About the only thing going in the plan's favor is that it's reviled equally by both sides of the question.
...On the House floor today, Congress passed HR2264, a bill modifying the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to enable the US to sue countries that help OPEC set crude oil prices.
What are they smoking in D.C. these days? Why would any foreign country care about an American anti-trust law?
...The business prospects of Parisian 'escorts' are improving...
From ScientificAmerican.com -
I can imagine the conversations with the expense account folks at various corporations now...
"About your trip expenses, Mr. Smith. Could you explain this $500 dollar massage at your hotel just after you arrived? We need to clarify it for our monthly report."
"Certainly Ms. Jones. It was a medically necessary part of my anti-jet lag regimen. The medication that I use has as one of its potential side effects an onset of tension.
A very rigid tension. The massage relieved that tension. That's all."
"Ahhh. I understand completely. Mr. Smith, we'll need a copy of the prescription for our records."
"Well, ummm, it's at home Ms. Jones. I could bring it in tomorrow if you like."
"Actually, Mr. Smith, we need it right away to finish closing out our report. Perhaps I could call your wife, explain the situation and have her bring it by the office...?"
"That's OK, Ms. Jones. Give me the receipt. I don't want to put you thru any trouble."
Later!
The film highlighted facets of the immigration debate that don't usually gain much notice; it humanizes the costs of the migration phenomenon, both to the many immigrants that have died while crossing the desert and to the ranchers and other residents along their paths.
It can be easy, sometimes, to forget that there is a real cost to people on this side of the border as a result of the immigration wave; not all of the opponents are stone bigots.
Even Chris Simcox, founder of the Minutemen doesn't come across as a stone bigot.
Instead, he seems like a manipulative opportunist. Not really an improvement, that. :)
However, if you have an opportunity to watch the film, pay close attention to the words of Tom Tancredo and Terry Anderson.
They *are* stone bigots.
...Whether or not you like the film, at least it was even-handed in humanizing the effects of immigration.
In comparison, the 'reform' plan that was revealed on the same day that Crossing Arizona was screened in Tempe just corporatizes it. As near as I can tell, the only folks who like the plan belong to the Chamber of Commerce.
About the only thing going in the plan's favor is that it's reviled equally by both sides of the question.
...On the House floor today, Congress passed HR2264, a bill modifying the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to enable the US to sue countries that help OPEC set crude oil prices.
What are they smoking in D.C. these days? Why would any foreign country care about an American anti-trust law?
...The business prospects of Parisian 'escorts' are improving...
From ScientificAmerican.com -
Viagra May Give a Boost to the Jet-Lagged
{snip}
The little blue pill, approved in the early 1990s to treat erectile dysfunction, may someday be a boon to those who suffer from the dulling effects of jet lag, according to a new study.{snip}
Their results, published in the current issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA: Hamsters given sildenafil (in concentrations of 3.5 parts per million in solution) adjusted to a six-hour change in their light-dark cycle (the equivalent of the time-change experienced by passengers traveling between New York City and Paris) in eight days; it took hamsters injected with saline solution 12 days to recover,
{snip}
But there is a hitch: sildenafil only helped hamsters adjust to phase advances of the light-dark cycle time changes—those that would be brought on by eastbound flights across time zones.
I can imagine the conversations with the expense account folks at various corporations now...
"About your trip expenses, Mr. Smith. Could you explain this $500 dollar massage at your hotel just after you arrived? We need to clarify it for our monthly report."
"Certainly Ms. Jones. It was a medically necessary part of my anti-jet lag regimen. The medication that I use has as one of its potential side effects an onset of tension.
A very rigid tension. The massage relieved that tension. That's all."
"Ahhh. I understand completely. Mr. Smith, we'll need a copy of the prescription for our records."
"Well, ummm, it's at home Ms. Jones. I could bring it in tomorrow if you like."
"Actually, Mr. Smith, we need it right away to finish closing out our report. Perhaps I could call your wife, explain the situation and have her bring it by the office...?"
"That's OK, Ms. Jones. Give me the receipt. I don't want to put you thru any trouble."
Later!
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Well, Weiers got his way today...
He was able to shoehorn his budget through the House today by a 31 - 29 margin. Once again, the Democratic caucus was solid, with every member voting against the measure; Jennifer Burns and Pete Hershberger crossed over from the Rep side.
During last vote on May 15, Republicans Groe, Biggs, Farnsworth, and Mason also voted against the motion. They switched back today.
No shocks here.
Anyone interested in starting a pool on when the budget fight will be resolved and the lege can adjourn? Purely for entertainment value, of course. :)
Later!
During last vote on May 15, Republicans Groe, Biggs, Farnsworth, and Mason also voted against the motion. They switched back today.
No shocks here.
Anyone interested in starting a pool on when the budget fight will be resolved and the lege can adjourn? Purely for entertainment value, of course. :)
Later!
Mix a little church/state conflict, some lawyers, and a little surrender...
Nobody came out of last night's (5/21/2007) meeting of the Scottsdale City Council looking good.
In front of yet another full house, though the crowd was probably a fraction of the size of the one that will attend the Chaparral Road widening special meeting next week, on Tuesday night the Scottsdale City Council discussed and voted on a controversial issue.
On the agenda for the meeting? Consideration of a settlement of a lawsuit by the SonRise Community Church against the City over the City's 2005 refusal to approve a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a private school on the Church's property in north Scottsdale.
The City Council Report concerning the agenda item that was prepared by city staff is here; be aware, however, that the .pdf format document is 40MB (734 pages!). Even with a high-speed connection, downloading it will take a while.
A very brief history -
In 2004, the Church applied for a CUP for a school; on September 29 of that year, the City's Planning Commission denied the application.
In June of 2005, the Planning Commission considered and denied a revised CUP application.
In July of 2005, the City Council also denied the CUP application.
In November of 2005, SonRise sued the City. Their complaint, among other things, was that the Council's refusal to approve the permit constituted a violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). That law, passed in 2000, has been interpreted to mean that local governments can't do anything that restricts the activities of a church.
Anyway, last night's meeting started off with a staff presentation about the history of the case, a few questions from the Council, and then public comment.
A *lot* of public comment.
The policy of the Scottsdale City Council is that people who want to speak at a meeting have to fill out a comment card before doing so.
According to City Clerk Carolyn Jagger, more than 60! cards had been handed out before the start of the meeting.
The first speaker was Mike Allen, representing the Church. Mr. Allen is the president of the board of Paradise Valley Christian Preparatory.
He keyed on a talking point that was echoed by most of the other speakers that rose in support of the Church and the proposed settlement, saying the Council should do "what is in the best interests of the children."
A number of members of SonRise spoke in favor of settlement; like Allen, they emphasized the educational, "do it for the kids" aspect.
There was also support from other denominations. The Phoenix Catholic Diocese sent a letter; a pastor from another north Scottsdale church spoke of how "churches are here to bless the community"; the assistant principal of the King David Center (a school) based at the Jewish Community Center also expressed support for the proposal.
There were also a large group of critics present. They spoke of how the current proposal isn't substantively different from the one that the Council disapproved in 2005; John Washington, a member of the Coalition of Greater Scottsdale (COGS), said that the proposal wasn't a settlement, but a "capitulation."
Another speaker observed that this "was never a religious issue" until SonRise's lawyers made it one when they claimed a violation of RLUIPA.
Still others spoke of concerns about the impact of the school on traffic in the area and said that the concessions stipulated in the agreement to address the issues (staggered school times) were of questionable viability; Howard Myers, a north Scottsdale activist, said that "all the planets have to be aligned for this to work."
Once the Council started debating the question among themselves, it was clear to the onlookers that the settlement would pass; in a bit of a surprise, by this council's standards anyway, the final vote would be 5 - 2 instead of the usual 4 - 3.
Vice-Mayor Tony Nelssen stated that the settlement amounted to an "affirmative preference" for "self-proclaimed" churches in land-use issues.
Councilwoman Betty Drake didn't immediately express support or opposition to the settlement. However, the fact that her questions and comments were focused on fine tuning the agreement shed light on her position.
Councilman Jim Lane called the whole thing a "terribly unfortunate situation" and expressed support for the settlement due to the potential costs of losing the lawsuit.
Note: estimates of costs of taking the litigation to trial ranged from $350,000 to a couple of million dollars.
Councilmen Wayne Ecton and Ron McCullagh were also very concerned about the potential to lose the lawsuit.
Councilman Bob Littlefield observed, in opposition to the settlement, that "this isn't about being even-handed, it's about being sued."
Drake responded that "this whole thing is about RLUIPA."
In front of yet another full house, though the crowd was probably a fraction of the size of the one that will attend the Chaparral Road widening special meeting next week, on Tuesday night the Scottsdale City Council discussed and voted on a controversial issue.
On the agenda for the meeting? Consideration of a settlement of a lawsuit by the SonRise Community Church against the City over the City's 2005 refusal to approve a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a private school on the Church's property in north Scottsdale.
The City Council Report concerning the agenda item that was prepared by city staff is here; be aware, however, that the .pdf format document is 40MB (734 pages!). Even with a high-speed connection, downloading it will take a while.
A very brief history -
In 2004, the Church applied for a CUP for a school; on September 29 of that year, the City's Planning Commission denied the application.
In June of 2005, the Planning Commission considered and denied a revised CUP application.
In July of 2005, the City Council also denied the CUP application.
In November of 2005, SonRise sued the City. Their complaint, among other things, was that the Council's refusal to approve the permit constituted a violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). That law, passed in 2000, has been interpreted to mean that local governments can't do anything that restricts the activities of a church.
Anyway, last night's meeting started off with a staff presentation about the history of the case, a few questions from the Council, and then public comment.
A *lot* of public comment.
The policy of the Scottsdale City Council is that people who want to speak at a meeting have to fill out a comment card before doing so.
According to City Clerk Carolyn Jagger, more than 60! cards had been handed out before the start of the meeting.
The first speaker was Mike Allen, representing the Church. Mr. Allen is the president of the board of Paradise Valley Christian Preparatory.
He keyed on a talking point that was echoed by most of the other speakers that rose in support of the Church and the proposed settlement, saying the Council should do "what is in the best interests of the children."
A number of members of SonRise spoke in favor of settlement; like Allen, they emphasized the educational, "do it for the kids" aspect.
There was also support from other denominations. The Phoenix Catholic Diocese sent a letter; a pastor from another north Scottsdale church spoke of how "churches are here to bless the community"; the assistant principal of the King David Center (a school) based at the Jewish Community Center also expressed support for the proposal.
There were also a large group of critics present. They spoke of how the current proposal isn't substantively different from the one that the Council disapproved in 2005; John Washington, a member of the Coalition of Greater Scottsdale (COGS), said that the proposal wasn't a settlement, but a "capitulation."
Another speaker observed that this "was never a religious issue" until SonRise's lawyers made it one when they claimed a violation of RLUIPA.
Still others spoke of concerns about the impact of the school on traffic in the area and said that the concessions stipulated in the agreement to address the issues (staggered school times) were of questionable viability; Howard Myers, a north Scottsdale activist, said that "all the planets have to be aligned for this to work."
Once the Council started debating the question among themselves, it was clear to the onlookers that the settlement would pass; in a bit of a surprise, by this council's standards anyway, the final vote would be 5 - 2 instead of the usual 4 - 3.
Vice-Mayor Tony Nelssen stated that the settlement amounted to an "affirmative preference" for "self-proclaimed" churches in land-use issues.
Councilwoman Betty Drake didn't immediately express support or opposition to the settlement. However, the fact that her questions and comments were focused on fine tuning the agreement shed light on her position.
Councilman Jim Lane called the whole thing a "terribly unfortunate situation" and expressed support for the settlement due to the potential costs of losing the lawsuit.
Note: estimates of costs of taking the litigation to trial ranged from $350,000 to a couple of million dollars.
Councilmen Wayne Ecton and Ron McCullagh were also very concerned about the potential to lose the lawsuit.
Councilman Bob Littlefield observed, in opposition to the settlement, that "this isn't about being even-handed, it's about being sued."
Drake responded that "this whole thing is about RLUIPA."
Mayor Mary Manross was the final one to speak on the issue; like the others, she expressed the sentiment that while she didn't like the settlement, voting for it was the right thing to do, both to minimize the financial risk to the city and because the modifications were enough of an improvement to merit approval of the CUP.
In the end, 3 votes were taken. The first one rescinded the original Council action (from 2005) to disapprove the CUP; the second then approved the modified CUP application; and the third accepted the settlement.
All three passed by a 5 - 2 margin; Manross, Drake, Ecton, McCullagh, and Lane voting 'aye'; Littlefield and Nelssen voting 'nay.'
Now for a few personal observations (and you knew there were going to be a few of those :) ):
Prior to the meeting, I had no firm opinion on this subject. I wasn't an observer of local politics during 2005, so I wasn't familiar with the case. In addition, I'm not a member of the church, nor am I a resident of north Scottsdale.
Not being a fan of the Scottsdale City Council or of overbearing churches, I didn't know who to root for in this conflict.
As it turned out, both sides were wrong.
...While the church had a number of supporters present, with few exceptions, they were all from outside of Scottsdale. In addition, most of the exceptions were employees of the church; they had a strong financial interest in the approval of the CUP.
For an organization that professes to just want to be a part of the community, they exhibit no community involvement or support.
...As for the City Council, one of the points that the supporters of the settlement stressed was that the risks of the lawsuit was that a loss would permanently undermine the effectiveness of the CUP and review process.
Lost on them: the fact that their abject surrender does the same thing.
One of the three flags that is displayed in the council kiva is composed of a blue City of Scottsdale logo on a white field.
At this point, it would be appropriate to remove the logo and leave the white field. It's a more appropriate symbol of the Council's actions.
...It may take a few months or a few years, but inevitably someone else in that area of north Scottsdale is going to propose developing some land in a way that the leaders of the church won't like.
When a church leader or lawyer rises in opposition and urges the Council to disapprove the development, I expect that someone who was at last night's meeting will gently (or not-so-gently) remind them of their actions of the last couple of years.
See: hoist by their own petard.
AZ Rep coverage of last night's meeting is here.
I'll be skipping tonight's regular meeting; however, next Tuesday's special meeting is a 'must-see."
Later!
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Upcoming events...
Thursday, May 24 - The LD17 Democrats present a Health Care Forum, featuring presenters from the Children's Action Alliance, Arizona Rural Health Association, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 99, and the AARP. The forum will be moderated Rep. Phil Lopes, House Minority Leader.
Time: 6:30 p.m.
Location: Granite Reef Senior Center, 1700 N. Granite Reef, Scottsdale.
Contact: Doug Mings, LD17 Democrats Chair, at dougmings[at]gmail.com.
Also on Thursday the 24th - The Arizona Advocacy Network will be holding a forum on "An Initiative to End Covert Ops At Our State Legislature." The forum will present proposals to change the culture at the state lege, the culture that encourages "stealthy" strike-everything amendments, majority dictatorship (see: the House budget proposal), and contempt for citizen input on legislation (see: Jack Harper's attitude toward any citizen who disagrees with him), among other things.
Time: 5:00 p.m.
Location: Grace Lutheran Church, 1124 N. 3rd St., Phoenix.
The Scottsdale City Council is going to have an eventful couple of weeks, lol -
Monday, May 21 - Special Meeting to discuss a settlement of a lawsuit between SonRise Community Church and the City. A couple of years ago, the church wanted to build a school on its property in a north Scottsdale neighborhood. The Council denied the permit. The Church sued.
Church/State fights are always entertaining. :)
Tuesday, May 22 - Regular meeting; highlights include consideration of budget issues and fees.
It's only a money meeting; no potential for conflict there, right? :))
Tuesday, May 29 - Special Meeting to discuss the options available regarding the possible widening of Chaparral Rd. This one arises out of a petition presented to the Council at the April 10th meeting ("100 angry octogenarians ready to rumble") asking that the Council commit to not removing homes to widen Chaparral Rd.
There were well over 100 people there just to present the petition; expect SRO on the 29th. Bring your own popcorn. :)))
More later...
Time: 6:30 p.m.
Location: Granite Reef Senior Center, 1700 N. Granite Reef, Scottsdale.
Contact: Doug Mings, LD17 Democrats Chair, at dougmings[at]gmail.com.
Also on Thursday the 24th - The Arizona Advocacy Network will be holding a forum on "An Initiative to End Covert Ops At Our State Legislature." The forum will present proposals to change the culture at the state lege, the culture that encourages "stealthy" strike-everything amendments, majority dictatorship (see: the House budget proposal), and contempt for citizen input on legislation (see: Jack Harper's attitude toward any citizen who disagrees with him), among other things.
Time: 5:00 p.m.
Location: Grace Lutheran Church, 1124 N. 3rd St., Phoenix.
The Scottsdale City Council is going to have an eventful couple of weeks, lol -
Monday, May 21 - Special Meeting to discuss a settlement of a lawsuit between SonRise Community Church and the City. A couple of years ago, the church wanted to build a school on its property in a north Scottsdale neighborhood. The Council denied the permit. The Church sued.
Church/State fights are always entertaining. :)
Tuesday, May 22 - Regular meeting; highlights include consideration of budget issues and fees.
It's only a money meeting; no potential for conflict there, right? :))
Tuesday, May 29 - Special Meeting to discuss the options available regarding the possible widening of Chaparral Rd. This one arises out of a petition presented to the Council at the April 10th meeting ("100 angry octogenarians ready to rumble") asking that the Council commit to not removing homes to widen Chaparral Rd.
There were well over 100 people there just to present the petition; expect SRO on the 29th. Bring your own popcorn. :)))
More later...
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Short attention span musing...
...In some of the most meaningless *big* news of the year, a bipartisan group of senators and the White House negotiated a compromise immigration reform plan that would grant legal status to previously illegal immigrants based on "skills, education levels and job experience" while devaluing family status in immigration decisions.
A couple of the kickers (emphasis mine) -
Ignoring for the moment the likelihood of passage thru a Congress full of nativist Republicans and progressive Democrats laying in wait for this one (at first blush, I'd rate the chances of passage at less than 50%) but the practical implications of this if passed would render it unworkable.
Fees and fines of more than $5000? Leaving the country voluntarily on the off chance that the government will let them back in?
From what I understand, the average illegal immigrant is uneducated.
'Uneducated' doesn't mean 'stupid'.
Most will figure out quickly that this doesn't benefit them at all.
...In what is perhaps related news, a private defense contractor, DynCorp International, is recruiting Border Patrol officers for a one-year contract in Iraq. Price: $134K salary, $25K signing bonus. (courtesy the AZ Rep's Plugged In)
Evidently the Bush admin feels that the new plan will pass and the Border Patrol can be downsized and privatized. And the new privatized force will escape notice as part of a continued buildup of US forces in Iraq.
...In news that surprised no one, Paul Wolfowitz resigned as head of the World Bank. However, in a rumor that is sure to hearten loyal Bushies the world over, soon-to-be unemployed British Prime Minister Tony Blair is being mentioned as a possible replacement.
That would work out nicely - Wolfowitz's resignation becomes effective on June 30; Blair's time as PM ends June 27.
I bet that time off would be so short that Tony wouldn't have to go on the dole, even for a little while.
Later!
A couple of the kickers (emphasis mine) -
The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a "Z visa" and — after paying fees and a $5,000 fine...Heads of households would have to return to their home countries first.
{snip}
A new crop of low-skilled guest workers would have to return home after stints of two years. They could renew their visas twice, but would be required to leave for a year in between each time.
Ignoring for the moment the likelihood of passage thru a Congress full of nativist Republicans and progressive Democrats laying in wait for this one (at first blush, I'd rate the chances of passage at less than 50%) but the practical implications of this if passed would render it unworkable.
Fees and fines of more than $5000? Leaving the country voluntarily on the off chance that the government will let them back in?
From what I understand, the average illegal immigrant is uneducated.
'Uneducated' doesn't mean 'stupid'.
Most will figure out quickly that this doesn't benefit them at all.
...In what is perhaps related news, a private defense contractor, DynCorp International, is recruiting Border Patrol officers for a one-year contract in Iraq. Price: $134K salary, $25K signing bonus. (courtesy the AZ Rep's Plugged In)
Evidently the Bush admin feels that the new plan will pass and the Border Patrol can be downsized and privatized. And the new privatized force will escape notice as part of a continued buildup of US forces in Iraq.
...In news that surprised no one, Paul Wolfowitz resigned as head of the World Bank. However, in a rumor that is sure to hearten loyal Bushies the world over, soon-to-be unemployed British Prime Minister Tony Blair is being mentioned as a possible replacement.
That would work out nicely - Wolfowitz's resignation becomes effective on June 30; Blair's time as PM ends June 27.
I bet that time off would be so short that Tony wouldn't have to go on the dole, even for a little while.
Later!
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Just when you thought it was safe to go back to the lege...
the Budget Plan From Hell is coming back around....
Sanity and reason won an all-too-rare victory in the AZ House yesterday with the defeat of House Speaker Jim Weiers' budget plan. HB2781 was defeated by a 27 - 31 vote, with a number of Republicans voting with the entire Democratic caucus to beat the bill back.
However, that victory may be short-lived, as State Rep. Trish Groe, one of the Republicans who voted against the measure yesterday, today moved to reconsider the bill on Tuesday, May 22. The motion passed 27 - 25.
In a budget-related matter, the meeting of the House Democratic Caucus that took place before the vote was broadcast on AZ Capitol Television last night. The best part was during discussion of a related bill (not HB2781). Rep. Theresa Ullmer's (D-Yuma) pointedly asked a question addressed to Rep. Rios and Lopez inquiring about what reasons there were to vote for the bill.
Rep. Lopez answered to the effect that the bill wasn't all that "horrible"; Rep. Rios just said that "you [Rep. Ullmer] can vote on the bill however you want; I [Rep. Rios] can vote on the bill however I want. We have different districts."
The brief exchange occurs at around the 1:01 mark of the meeting; the video archive is available here.
I'll give a little credit where it's due; both Lopez and Rios voted with the caucus when it counted. Of course, they may not have been happy about it.
We'll see how unhappy on Tuesday.
Tedski at Rum, Romanism and Rebellion has been providing solid coverage of the budget-related events at the lege; he does a much better job with the details than I do, and I strongly recommend checking out his posts on the subject.
Later!
Sanity and reason won an all-too-rare victory in the AZ House yesterday with the defeat of House Speaker Jim Weiers' budget plan. HB2781 was defeated by a 27 - 31 vote, with a number of Republicans voting with the entire Democratic caucus to beat the bill back.
However, that victory may be short-lived, as State Rep. Trish Groe, one of the Republicans who voted against the measure yesterday, today moved to reconsider the bill on Tuesday, May 22. The motion passed 27 - 25.
In a budget-related matter, the meeting of the House Democratic Caucus that took place before the vote was broadcast on AZ Capitol Television last night. The best part was during discussion of a related bill (not HB2781). Rep. Theresa Ullmer's (D-Yuma) pointedly asked a question addressed to Rep. Rios and Lopez inquiring about what reasons there were to vote for the bill.
Rep. Lopez answered to the effect that the bill wasn't all that "horrible"; Rep. Rios just said that "you [Rep. Ullmer] can vote on the bill however you want; I [Rep. Rios] can vote on the bill however I want. We have different districts."
The brief exchange occurs at around the 1:01 mark of the meeting; the video archive is available here.
I'll give a little credit where it's due; both Lopez and Rios voted with the caucus when it counted. Of course, they may not have been happy about it.
We'll see how unhappy on Tuesday.
Tedski at Rum, Romanism and Rebellion has been providing solid coverage of the budget-related events at the lege; he does a much better job with the details than I do, and I strongly recommend checking out his posts on the subject.
Later!
Blocked in China! Whooo hooo!
Edit to correct source of the tip. Sorry CC, and thanks for the comment!
Movin' up to the big time... :)
Thanks to CC McGoon at Jobsanger for the tip about this website, greatfirewallofchina.org.
Unlike him, I've never written about China, so I'm not sure why this blog has been blocked.
But it still makes me proud. :)))
Of course, that attitude may be the reason for the ban in the first place.
Later!
Movin' up to the big time... :)
Thanks to CC McGoon at Jobsanger for the tip about this website, greatfirewallofchina.org.
Unlike him, I've never written about China, so I'm not sure why this blog has been blocked.
But it still makes me proud. :)))
Of course, that attitude may be the reason for the ban in the first place.
Later!
Movies, Solar Power, Fences: Events for Thursday, May 17
There are actually a few things to do in the LD17/CD5 area tomorrow, so tomorrow gets its own post. :)
6:30 p.m. - The LD17 Democrats will be presenting the award-winning film "Crossing Arizona" at the Escalante Community Center, 2150 E. Orange, Tempe. Q&A with Mike Wilson from the film afterward.
6:30 p.m. - The LD8 Democrats will be presenting their monthly community outreach program. This months topic is solar/renewable energy. The forum features Ben Marcus, chairman of the Arizona Solar Energy Association, as well as other speakers. The event is taking place at the Mustang Library, 10101 North 90th Street, Scottsdale.
7:00 p.m. - The Community Council of Scottsdale is meeting at the Granite Reef Senior Center in Scottsdale. Not sure what's on the agenda for this month's meeting, but there's usually a number of City Council members and city employees at these meetings. Discussion frequently revolves around city ordinances and their effects in south Scottsdale (the 'fences' in the title of the post. :) ).
Later!
6:30 p.m. - The LD17 Democrats will be presenting the award-winning film "Crossing Arizona" at the Escalante Community Center, 2150 E. Orange, Tempe. Q&A with Mike Wilson from the film afterward.
6:30 p.m. - The LD8 Democrats will be presenting their monthly community outreach program. This months topic is solar/renewable energy. The forum features Ben Marcus, chairman of the Arizona Solar Energy Association, as well as other speakers. The event is taking place at the Mustang Library, 10101 North 90th Street, Scottsdale.
7:00 p.m. - The Community Council of Scottsdale is meeting at the Granite Reef Senior Center in Scottsdale. Not sure what's on the agenda for this month's meeting, but there's usually a number of City Council members and city employees at these meetings. Discussion frequently revolves around city ordinances and their effects in south Scottsdale (the 'fences' in the title of the post. :) ).
Later!
Monday, May 14, 2007
Moving into the 21st Century...
I finally broke down and picked up a notebook...whooo hoooo!
Nothing fancy, just a Dell Latitude with lots of memory (2GB RAM, 80GB HD); I'll be spending a lot of time over the next couple of days getting it configured the way that I want it.
I've been going through Excel withdrawal since my home machine needed a reformat.
Yes, I'm a geek. :))
For a couple of days I probably won't be posting much (unless Bush resigns), so I'll leave with a tip to check out Lofty Donkey's post of a very informative Jack Harper email calling for a rally to support Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee when he visits Phoenix next week.
Did you know that people who oppose the war in Iraq are "anarchists"??
I think that may be the nicest thing he's ever said about me. [sniff!]
I'm so flattered that I won't even pick on his spelling, grammar, or formatting.
Later!
Nothing fancy, just a Dell Latitude with lots of memory (2GB RAM, 80GB HD); I'll be spending a lot of time over the next couple of days getting it configured the way that I want it.
I've been going through Excel withdrawal since my home machine needed a reformat.
Yes, I'm a geek. :))
For a couple of days I probably won't be posting much (unless Bush resigns), so I'll leave with a tip to check out Lofty Donkey's post of a very informative Jack Harper email calling for a rally to support Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee when he visits Phoenix next week.
Did you know that people who oppose the war in Iraq are "anarchists"??
I think that may be the nicest thing he's ever said about me. [sniff!]
I'm so flattered that I won't even pick on his spelling, grammar, or formatting.
Later!
Saturday, May 12, 2007
If at first you don't succeed, try again...
And if that doesn't work, quietly slip it into the budget and hope no one notices.
During this session of the legislature, Rep. Mark Anderson (R-LD18) sponsored HB2382, a bill that would remove the limits on fees charged to teachers for their certification/recertification tests. Currently, for tests administered by the state, those fees are capped at around $25; however, because of previous legislation, private companies can and do charge whatever they want to charge for the tests they administer.
Frequently, the fees charged by private companies extend into the hundred of dollars, so in essence, the low-tax mavens of the Republican Party were wholeheartedly supporting a massive tax increase on teachers. They were able to sell it to themselves by calling it a 'fee' instead of a 'tax'; well, that and the fact that it was targeted at public employees and not their corporate base.
Rep. Anderson defended the bill by saying that it wasn't his (of course, he was the only sponsor). He stated that the bill was brought to him state Board of Education. Apparently the Board of Ed didn't like the idea that the most of the costs of the state-mandated tests would be borne by the state; specifically the Board of Ed. It was so unfair that they wanted someone else to pick up the tab.
Scanning about for a likely patsy, they immediately focused on the teachers themselves. They were the one group that had no choice about the tests - they have to take them to obtain and keep their jobs.
If Rep. Anderson was telling the truth about this, he was just fronting this abomination for Tom Horne and the Board of Ed. [For you non-AZ types, Tom Horne is the State Superintendant of Public Instruction.]
Note the use of the past tense - this 'terrible'* bill was killed twice in the House. On March 13, it failed on a vote of 26 - 31; it was reconsidered on March 15, and promptly failed 21 - 38.
That should have been the end of it; not only did it go down to defeat in the House twice before reaching the Senate, the second margin of defeat was significantly larger than the first.
However, like bad sushi, it's come up again.
The K-12 Budget Reconciliation Act for the Senate budget proposal, SB1094 (don't bother with the original text; check the Senate strike-everything amendment under 'adopted amendments') contains the following language (small, red, italicized print was actually struck through in the source; blue text denotes proposed revisions. I haven't figured out how to do strike through text in a Blogger post.) -
During the bright light of day and legislative scrutiny, this terrible (oops - there's that word again. :) ) bill stunk like week-old fish; so much so that it failed twice. Sneaking it into the budget and hoping that no one notices it doesn't give it the aroma of spring lilacs in bloom.
If you're a teacher, or just know one, call or email your legislators and let them know that you believe this language should be removed from the budget act. Do it soon.
Senate roster with contact info here; House roster here.
During the coming week, I'll try to take a look at all of the budget reconciliation bills to see if there are more instances of this kind of chicanery.
"If"?? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
* - This is the bill that Rep. David Schapira called "terrible" while it was under reconsideration on March 15; he was promptly admonished by House Speaker Pro Tem Bob Robson for using an offensively strong term to describe the bill. Wonder what Rep. Robson thinks of the word 'abomination'??
Note - I chronicled the initial defeat of HB2382 during the post about my March 13th visit to the state lege with Bob Mings.
Later!
During this session of the legislature, Rep. Mark Anderson (R-LD18) sponsored HB2382, a bill that would remove the limits on fees charged to teachers for their certification/recertification tests. Currently, for tests administered by the state, those fees are capped at around $25; however, because of previous legislation, private companies can and do charge whatever they want to charge for the tests they administer.
Frequently, the fees charged by private companies extend into the hundred of dollars, so in essence, the low-tax mavens of the Republican Party were wholeheartedly supporting a massive tax increase on teachers. They were able to sell it to themselves by calling it a 'fee' instead of a 'tax'; well, that and the fact that it was targeted at public employees and not their corporate base.
Rep. Anderson defended the bill by saying that it wasn't his (of course, he was the only sponsor). He stated that the bill was brought to him state Board of Education. Apparently the Board of Ed didn't like the idea that the most of the costs of the state-mandated tests would be borne by the state; specifically the Board of Ed. It was so unfair that they wanted someone else to pick up the tab.
Scanning about for a likely patsy, they immediately focused on the teachers themselves. They were the one group that had no choice about the tests - they have to take them to obtain and keep their jobs.
If Rep. Anderson was telling the truth about this, he was just fronting this abomination for Tom Horne and the Board of Ed. [For you non-AZ types, Tom Horne is the State Superintendant of Public Instruction.]
Note the use of the past tense - this 'terrible'* bill was killed twice in the House. On March 13, it failed on a vote of 26 - 31; it was reconsidered on March 15, and promptly failed 21 - 38.
That should have been the end of it; not only did it go down to defeat in the House twice before reaching the Senate, the second margin of defeat was significantly larger than the first.
However, like bad sushi, it's come up again.
The K-12 Budget Reconciliation Act for the Senate budget proposal, SB1094 (don't bother with the original text; check the Senate strike-everything amendment under 'adopted amendments') contains the following language (small, red, italicized print was actually struck through in the source; blue text denotes proposed revisions. I haven't figured out how to do strike through text in a Blogger post.) -
3. Administration and evaluation of the examination on the Constitutions of the United States and Arizona, not less than six dollars and not more than twelve dollars for regularly scheduled administrations and not less than twelve dollars and not more than
twenty dollars for administrations other than regularly scheduled administrations. Fees for the examination on the Constitutions of the United States and Arizona shall not exceed the fees assessed by the test publisher.
4. Administration and evaluation of the reading, grammar and mathematics proficiency examination for applicants for teaching certificates, not less than ten dollars and not more than twenty dollars. Fees for the proficiency examination shall not exceed the fees assessed by the test publisher.
During the bright light of day and legislative scrutiny, this terrible (oops - there's that word again. :) ) bill stunk like week-old fish; so much so that it failed twice. Sneaking it into the budget and hoping that no one notices it doesn't give it the aroma of spring lilacs in bloom.
If you're a teacher, or just know one, call or email your legislators and let them know that you believe this language should be removed from the budget act. Do it soon.
Senate roster with contact info here; House roster here.
During the coming week, I'll try to take a look at all of the budget reconciliation bills to see if there are more instances of this kind of chicanery.
"If"?? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
* - This is the bill that Rep. David Schapira called "terrible" while it was under reconsideration on March 15; he was promptly admonished by House Speaker Pro Tem Bob Robson for using an offensively strong term to describe the bill. Wonder what Rep. Robson thinks of the word 'abomination'??
Note - I chronicled the initial defeat of HB2382 during the post about my March 13th visit to the state lege with Bob Mings.
Later!
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Brand new day, same old Jack
Yeah, I wasn't going to post, but while I was in the middle of setting up and formatting the new CD5-only blog, I had the TV on and tuned to Arizona Capitol Television. And before you ask, yes, I know I need help. :)
Jack Harper was in 'classic Jack' form today. :))
The channel was airing today's meeting of the Joint Committee to Investigate Operations and Conditions at the AZ Veterans Home, featuring the testimony for the former director of the Arizona Department of Veterans Services, Patrick Chorpenning.
Just a couple of observations -
The Governor's office is *definitely* not on Mr. Chorpenning's Christmas card list. He believes he was unfairly made a scapegoat for the conditions at the Veterans Home (the phrase was "thrown under the bus").
However, and this adds to his credibility, when Sen. Jack Harper teed up an opportunity for Mr. Chorpenning to take a shot at Harry Mitchell, he strongly backed up the Congressman.
Harper started off by reminding everyone of Mitchell's visit to the Carl Hayden VA Medical Center and how the Congressman and his staff had met up with Chorpenning in front of the state Veterans Home (the facilities are across a parking lot from each other). Harper then tried to lead Chorpenning into saying that Mitchell was aware of the conditions at the state veterans home and said nothing about them.
Chorpenning would have none of that; he stated that the Congressman and his staffers were somewhat unfamiliar with the layout of the whole complex and it was easier to just meet in front of the state home and walk over to the VA facility together.
Chorpenning is certainly angry, but it's not a blind anger. He's not out to pass the blame to anyone he doesn't believe has earned it.
Jack Harper (R-Surprise!) is a very different story.
I've noticed this tendency in Harper before; at the last meeting of this committee that I was able to watch, he spent most of his time trying to trick a lawyer into saying something that would incriminate her firm or the Governor's office; in short, then, as now, as always, he was more interested in scoring partisan political points than in addressing the needs of Arizona's elderly veterans.
Also, this wasn't the first time Harper has tried to use the Arizona State Veterans Home situation to throw mud on U.S. Representative Harry Mitchell; Tedski at R-Cubed covered an earlier attempt in March. The Harper press release that he talks about is here.
The Republicans are going to have enough trouble keeping control of the lege next year without Harper running amok; with him off the leash, they may lose both chambers.
By the way, I have one piece of advice for the good Senator; well, actually, two pieces of advice -
1. Keep up the obnoxiousness, the louder the better; the phrase "Speaker Phil Lopes" has a nice ring to it.
2. Don't try to verbally fence with a lawyer; you'll lose every time. Words are their stock-in-trade. 'Nuff said.
:)
Notes -
The attorney was Karen Owens of Coppersmith Gordon Schermer Owens & Nelson, the firm that is representing the state veterans home as it deals with the administrative sanctions relating to inpsections earlier this year.
That meeting (the one with Ms. Owens) took place on April 24th; the video archive is available here. Her testimony begins somewhere around the 1:06 mark; her exchange with Harper begins near the 1:28 mark.
The video of today's meeting isn't on the website yet.
AZ Rep coverage of the first part of the meeting is here.
Later!
Jack Harper was in 'classic Jack' form today. :))
The channel was airing today's meeting of the Joint Committee to Investigate Operations and Conditions at the AZ Veterans Home, featuring the testimony for the former director of the Arizona Department of Veterans Services, Patrick Chorpenning.
Just a couple of observations -
The Governor's office is *definitely* not on Mr. Chorpenning's Christmas card list. He believes he was unfairly made a scapegoat for the conditions at the Veterans Home (the phrase was "thrown under the bus").
However, and this adds to his credibility, when Sen. Jack Harper teed up an opportunity for Mr. Chorpenning to take a shot at Harry Mitchell, he strongly backed up the Congressman.
Harper started off by reminding everyone of Mitchell's visit to the Carl Hayden VA Medical Center and how the Congressman and his staff had met up with Chorpenning in front of the state Veterans Home (the facilities are across a parking lot from each other). Harper then tried to lead Chorpenning into saying that Mitchell was aware of the conditions at the state veterans home and said nothing about them.
Chorpenning would have none of that; he stated that the Congressman and his staffers were somewhat unfamiliar with the layout of the whole complex and it was easier to just meet in front of the state home and walk over to the VA facility together.
Chorpenning is certainly angry, but it's not a blind anger. He's not out to pass the blame to anyone he doesn't believe has earned it.
Jack Harper (R-Surprise!) is a very different story.
I've noticed this tendency in Harper before; at the last meeting of this committee that I was able to watch, he spent most of his time trying to trick a lawyer into saying something that would incriminate her firm or the Governor's office; in short, then, as now, as always, he was more interested in scoring partisan political points than in addressing the needs of Arizona's elderly veterans.
Also, this wasn't the first time Harper has tried to use the Arizona State Veterans Home situation to throw mud on U.S. Representative Harry Mitchell; Tedski at R-Cubed covered an earlier attempt in March. The Harper press release that he talks about is here.
The Republicans are going to have enough trouble keeping control of the lege next year without Harper running amok; with him off the leash, they may lose both chambers.
By the way, I have one piece of advice for the good Senator; well, actually, two pieces of advice -
1. Keep up the obnoxiousness, the louder the better; the phrase "Speaker Phil Lopes" has a nice ring to it.
2. Don't try to verbally fence with a lawyer; you'll lose every time. Words are their stock-in-trade. 'Nuff said.
:)
Notes -
The attorney was Karen Owens of Coppersmith Gordon Schermer Owens & Nelson, the firm that is representing the state veterans home as it deals with the administrative sanctions relating to inpsections earlier this year.
That meeting (the one with Ms. Owens) took place on April 24th; the video archive is available here. Her testimony begins somewhere around the 1:06 mark; her exchange with Harper begins near the 1:28 mark.
The video of today's meeting isn't on the website yet.
AZ Rep coverage of the first part of the meeting is here.
Later!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)