Quick update - early signature filers

Nominating petitions aren't due until next Wednesday, but they are already rolling in across the Valley and across the state.


From a phone conversation with Carolyn Jagger, City Clerk of Scottsdale, the list of candidates for city council who have submitted their petitions already -

Joe Penalosa
Bob Littlefield (incumbent)
Tony Nelssen (incumbent)
Guy Phillips
Ned O'Hearn (former councilman)


Statewide and federal offices, courtesy the AZ Secretary of State's website,

U.S. Senate - Jim Deakin and J.D. Hayworth (both Rs)

U.S. Congress, CD1 - Bradley Beauchamp (R)

CD2 - Trent Franks (R)

CD3 - Steve Moak, Ed Winkler, Jim Waring (all Rs)

CD4 - Ed Pastor (D)

CD5 - Susan Bitter Smith and David Schweikert (Rs)

CD6 - Jeff Smith (R)
\
CD7 - Ruth McClung (R)

CD8 - Jesse Kelly (R)

Arizona Governor - Terry Goddard (D), Ron Cavanagh and Bruce Olsen (Ls), Jan Brewer, John Munger and Matthew Jette (Rs)

Arizona Secretary of State - Sam Wercinski (D) and Ken Bennett (R)

Arizona Attorney General - Felecia Rotellini (D), Tom Horne and Andrew Thomas (Rs)

Arizona Treasurer - Doug Ducey, Barbara Leff, and Thayer Verschoor (Rs)

Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction - Margaret Dugan and John Huppenthal (Rs)

Arizona Corporation Commission - David Bradley and Jorge Luis Garcia (Ds), Brenda Burns, Gary Pierce, and Barry Wong (Rs)


I've got an email out to the Maricopa County Elections Department inquiring after similar info for the county-wide offices up this time around (county attorney and the governing board of the Central Arizona Project), but they haven't replied as of this writing. I'll update when that info becomes available.

Later...

Municipal budget time

Most of the state's political attention is on this week's special election to raise the state's sales tax by 1 percentage point or on the latest development in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate.

However, folks may want to start paying a little of that attention to matters closer to home.

Specifically, the municipal budget process.

Most cities and towns in AZ are finalizing their FY2011 budgets and are holding hearings to publicize their proposed revenues and expenditures for the coming year.

- On Tuesday in Scottsdale, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the budget proposal and proposed rates and fees during its regularly scheduled meeting (full agenda here). Also on the agenda: proposed changes to the City's charter to be offered for voter approval in November. Some interesting proposals here, but I'll cover those in a separate post closer to the election. The City's budget resource webpage is here.

- On Thursday and Friday, Tempe's City Council will be holding a number of mostly budget-related meetings.

After Thursday's regularly scheduled Council meeting (agenda for that here), they will be holding a meeting of the Rio Salado Community Facilities District Board to consider the tentative budget and assessments for the district.

On Friday, the Tempe City Council will be holding a budget workshop. The agenda for that includes discussion of "budget balancing" proposals for the City's Golf Fund, Performing Arts Fund, Transportation Fund, and Transit Fund (more layoffs coming, folks) and a discussion of the City's Capital Improvement Plan follow up.

Look for similar meetings in the other cities and towns in AZ shortly, if they haven't taken place already.

While the antics of the state legislature and governor garner more press (and notice from the likes of me), what our City Councils are doing has a far more direct impact on our day-to-day lives, and deserve at least as much attention.

Jan Brewer wants to "rebrand" Arizona's image

Arizona's unelected governor, Jan Brewer, has finally realized the furor over the police-state bill that she signed into law, SB1070, won't die down. Arizona's image across the country and the world has become that of a virulently redneck place where minorities and outsiders are only welcome in our prisons and jails.

So in typical Jan fashion, she's forming a commission of business types and giving them some of the state's ever-more scarce financial resources ($250K!) to get the message out that Arizona really is a swell place to visit, gosh darn it.

From the AZ Republic article -

Acknowledging that Arizona has developed a serious image problem because of its tough new immigration law, Gov. Jan Brewer and tourism-industry leaders said Thursday that they will launch a new effort to stanch the flow of lost trade and convention business in the state.

{snip}

A new task force is charged with rebranding and repositioning the state as a unique destination spot.

That is sure to be a tough task after weeks of talk-show comedians, celebrities, politicians and others making Arizona a punch line, calling the law racist and drawing comparisons to fascism and Nazi Germany.

{snip, for the big whopper of the piece}

The governor said much of the furor is caused by what she characterized as "mistruths" about the new law.

As an example, Brewer said it has been erroneously reported that the new immigration law would allow racial profiling and that visitors can't come to Arizona without ID or they'll be arrested.

"You aren't going to be asked for ID unless you first commit a crime," she said.

To address the lie first - SB1070 contains the following section:

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON...

That section was adjusted with the passage of HB2162 with this language -

For any lawful contact STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY OTHER LAW OR ORDINANCE OF A COUNTY, CITY OR TOWN OR THIS STATE...

Not really an improvement that. The law has gone from "arrest immigrants and tourists for asking a police officer for directions or the time of day" to "arrest immigrants and tourists for merely being in the vicinity of a noise ordinance or sign code violation (think that there will be any of those in an election year?)".

No crime has to be committed by a person for the police to demand to see their papers, they only have to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Victims, witnesses, and even completely uninvolved bystanders are at risk for arrest. And the kicker is, if the law enforcement officer understands that and doesn't demand to see the papers of everyone he has contact with, he will get sued by anybody who so desires. In short, the law is written in such a way as to condition law enforcement officers to go after everybody, even if it is counterproductive to public safety or justice.

Anyway, if Jan and her clan want to improve Arizona's image, here are a few suggestions to her from someone who is sick of starting conversations with outsiders with "Hi, I'm from Arizona, and no, we aren't all nuts" -

1. People won't boycott AZ over bigoted police state laws if you don't sign them in the first place.

Duh.

2. Quit enacting laws like the "anybody can carry a concealed weapon without training or a background check" law. Not only do outsiders think that we are bigots, they think that we are bigots who are heavily-armed and trigger-happy. And who can get our drunk on earlier than ever before.

3. Stop lying about the problem, and instead focus your energy on fixing it.

Later...

Pearce facing challengers for his seat in the AZ Senate

While State Senator Russell Pearce (R-National Alliance) has been traipsing across the country and the cable news shows crowing about his police state bill, challengers have been lining up for a chance to represent West Mesa in the Arizona State Senate.

...In February, Robert H. McDonald announced his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for the LD18 Senate seat.

...In mid-April, Andrea Garcia formed a committee to pursue the Libertarian nomination in LD18.

...A week later in April, Andrew Sherwood formed a committee for the Democratic nomination, setting up a primary on the Democratic side of the ballot, something that hasn't happened since at least 1992 (which was as far back as I checked. The area covered by LD18 now was LD29 in the 1990s. Before that, I don't know what district it was.)

During the last nine election cycles, there hasn't been even one instance of a contested primary on the D side of the Senate ballot. In fact, in many of the cycles, there hasn't been even one Democratic challenger for the Senate seat.

*Two" Democrats duking it out for the chance to unseat Pearce after years of token opposition (and not even that much of of the time)? Be still my beating heart...

I don't know much about Sherwood or McDonald at this point, but Garcia has turned in her nominating petitions. On her website, she even talks about how she submitted "nearly twice the required number [of signatures] to qualify for the August 24th primary election."

Sounds like a groundswell of support, if only of the ABRP variety (ABRP = Anybody But Russell Pearce), right?

It does, until you find out that as a Libertarian, she only needs 6 signatures to qualify for the ballot.

She submitted 11, so her "nearly twice the required number" statement *is* technically true, but... :)

Anyway, after months of embarrassing the state and years of doing everything except for representing his district, Pearce looks to be facing serious competition this time around.

Later...

Harry Mitchell's bill to freeze Congressional pay signed into law by the President

Lost in the hyperpartisan hubbub of election-year posturing across the state and country ("Hayworth this!" "McCain that!", etc.) has been the workmanlike job turned in by CD5's Congressman, Harry Mitchell.

Whether it is tirelessly advocating for America's veterans (including calling out the VA for its lackluster performance of its own job) or simply recognizing a long-time colleague in public service on his retirement, Mitchell's work in Congress has been the definition of "good government."

"Good government" may not be as sexy as the "health care reform" package that passed Congress earlier this year or as incendiary as police state bill "immigration reform" bill that passed the Arizona legislature last month, but it is the most important part of elected officials' jobs.

Note to Tea Party/Republican types: imagine reading that sentence with "sexy" and "incendiary" switched. That sentence will still work for you. :)

Today's signing of H.R. 5146 is part of that pattern of good government. It garnered bipartisan support (79 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, including conservative icons Jeff Flake and Ron Paul, and overwhelming support when the measure reached the floor - 402-15 in the House, unanimous in the Senate).

In a statement on the signing, Mitchell said -

"To raise Congressional pay at a time when so many families are still struggling to make ends meet would be unconscionable and glaringly out of touch. I am pleased that President Obama has signed this bipartisan legislation into law. This sends an important message. The American people are not getting a raise this year and neither should Congress."

While some might deride Mitchell's bill as an election year stunt, it should be remembered that he has proposed the same measure every year since entering Congress. This was no stunt, just Harry doing his job.

Mitchell's full statement on today's signing here.

Short Attention Span Musing

Just a mish-mash of (mostly) lege-related stuff...

...Governor Jan Brewer has vetoed HB2462, Rep. Ed Ableser's proposal to rein in predatory towing companies. In her veto letter (linked above to the word 'vetoed'), she cited a few reasons she was opposed to this bill, including that she felt that it added responsibilities to the Department of Public Safety (DPS) while not funding those new activities. What she didn't cite, in the letter anyway, was the fact that Rep. Ableser is known as one of the most progressive members of the Democratic and is vocal about his positions.

Including his opposition the Brewer's proposed sales tax increase (voting closes next Tuesday).

According to sources, one of the big motivations behind the veto was Ableser's vocal opposition to the tax hike because of its regressive nature.

Now to be fair, it probably wasn't her only reason for the veto - most Ds voted against the referral of the sales tax increase to the ballot, but there have been a *few* D-sponsored bills signed by Brewer.

Still, an aroma of "payback" is surrounds this veto.

...There's also a whiff of hypocrisy surrounding it, too. In her letter vetoing the bill, Brewer also cited a concern for maintaining local control of local matters.

This the same day she signed HB2281, barring local school districts from offering ethnic studies courses to their students.

...There is a rumor that there will be yet another special session of the lege (8 and counting so far). The plan for this one, if it goes off, will be to pass some version of the Republicans' corporate bailout bill (HB2250 in the regular session).

They'll want to do this ASAP, in order to maximize corporate spending on their campaigns, but this move may be bad tactically. They should have passed this *before* passing SB1070, Russell Pearce's "show us your papers" anti-immigrant bill. If they had, their corporate tax cuts would have been lost in the uproar over their scheme to suspend Bill of Rights protections for people with brown skin.

Now, the AZ lege is under a nationwide microscope, and anything they do will be dissected.

If more of the Rs had attended last week's Project Civil Discourse Town Hall on the sales tax (only House Republican leader John McComish was there), they might be rethinking their plans.

While there was a variety of perspectives on the sales tax proposal, one thread seemed to run through all the comments, whether supporting or opposing the referendum - almost nobody trusts the legislature to handle things properly.

...The Arizona Democratic Party has come out in opposition to the calls for a boycott of Arizona over SB1070. They feel a boycott will hurt the average Arizonan, most of whom have nothing to do with the bill, and prefer to rally support and change the composition of the legislature. (my paraphrase, so if any nuances have been missed, the fault is mine)

I understand the reasoning and even would agree with it, except that this is Arizona.

Here, the Republicans refuse to hear any of the voices raised in protest to their anti-immigrant law, but they will hear (and have heard in the past) the sound of closing wallets.

Until the ADP implements a "30 District" strategy to contest every seat in the lege and sticks with it, and either gains control of one or both chambers of the lege (or at least makes the Rs learn that they can't take control of the lege for granted), the Rs aren't going to change.

As such, while I agree that a boycott will have negative effects on many Arizonans that weren't involved in the passage of SB1070, those effects will be less bad than the effects of the law if it goes unchallenged.

...It looks as if even national Republicans are embarrassed by their Arizona counterparts. In what comes as a bit of a surprise, the GOP has bypassed Phoenix and awarded its 2012 convention to Tampa, Florida.

Tampa???? Phoenix was stood up for Tampa?? Thank you Russell Pearce and Jan Brewer...

Hmmm....wouldn't it be sweet if the Democratic National Committee now decides to hold its convention here? You know that the R whackjobs would crawl out from under every rock in the Southwest to make their presence known...colorfully...in front of half the TV cameras in the known universe.

Just randomly musing... :)

...Yesterday, I got a dirty look from a signature collector for one of the three Democrats who recently jumped into the race to challenge for John McCain's Senate seat. When she approached me for a sig, I advised her that I couldn't sign the petition because I had signed another candidate's paperwork (Rodney Glassman). The dirty look came when I further advised her that she and her candidate should have begun collecting sigs months before the deadline, not three weeks before.

The sad part is that I was trying to be helpful. I think a couple of the candidates are interesting, even intriguing. However, a candidate for a U.S. Senate seat can't make the run/don't run decision on the spur of the moment, and it looks like these three did so.

May 2010 is the time to start building the foundation for a 2012 run at Jon Kyl's seat, not for a 2010 run at John McCain's seat.

Later...

Kagan is the Supreme Court nominee

The Party of No is already gearing up their "we oppose everything" campaign, but President Obama's nomination of United States Solicitor General Elena Kagan should go relatively smoothly. They seem to be stressing the fact that she has never been a judge, all the while conveniently ignoring that many Supreme Court Justices have not been judges prior to their appointment to the Court.

Including John Roberts, the current Chief Justice, a Bush II nominee.

Apparently the phenomenon of IOKIYAR isn't just confined to Arizona.

While the confirmation process promises to be a colorful one, particularly given that this is an election year with its incentive for partisan posturing, expectations are that Kagan will be confirmed.

From the email sent out by the President announcing his pick -

Today, it is my great honor to nominate our Solicitor General, and my friend, Elena Kagan, to be the next justice of the United States Supreme Court.

As I send my nomination to the Senate, I wanted to record a special message for you that I hope will help us launch a national discussion.

Take a minute to watch this video, and then help me to introduce Elena to your friends and family by passing it on.

Elena is widely regarded as one of the best legal minds of her generation -- earning praise from across the ideological spectrum throughout her career. Above all, she is a trailblazer. She wasn't just the first woman to serve as dean of Harvard Law School -- she was one of its most beloved and successful leaders, building a reputation for openness to other viewpoints and skill in working with others to build consensus. These were some of the many reasons why I selected her to be my Solicitor General, the nation's chief advocate -- the first woman to hold that post as well.

Her work as Solicitor General has allowed me to see firsthand just why Elena is particularly well-suited to the Court: She has not only a keen understanding of the law, but also one that is rooted in a deep awareness of its impact on people's lives. Last year, she made that clear -- choosing the Citizens United case as her first to argue before the Supreme Court, defending bipartisan campaign finance reform against special interests seeking to spend unlimited money to influence our elections.

Now, I look forward to the prospect of Elena taking her seat alongside Justice Ginsberg and Justice Sotomayor. For the first time, our nation's highest court would include three women, ensuring a Court that would be more inclusive, more representative, more reflective of us as a people than ever before.

When Justice Stevens wrote me to announce his retirement, I knew that the Court would be losing a standard bearer. And I felt a responsibility to nominate an individual capable of being that same guiding force, a consistent voice of reason on the Court.

I am certain I have made the right choice. As you learn more about Elena, I am confident you'll see what I do -- that she is a voice we need on the Supreme Court.

Please watch the message -- and share it with others:

http://my.barackobama.com/ElenaKagan

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

Later...

Arpaio refuses to show his documents

And the "delicious irony" series continues...

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is one of the most ardent supporters of the Fourth Amendment-overriding SB1070, the new law in Arizona that requires folks to produce documents proving citizenship/legal presence in the U.S. whenever a law enforcement officer demands that they do so.

Turns out he isn't so enthusiastic about the production of documents when he's the one expected to produce them.

From the Arizona Republic -

The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office on Friday refused to turn over financial documents the Board of Supervisors requested in a subpoena, saying officials were abusing their power.

The supervisors served the subpoena last month seeking documents dating from Jan. 1, 2005, including credit-card transactions, work assignments, a list of all detainees or defendants extradited by the office, expenditures from various funds and a complete list of all bank accounts.

BTW - "delicious irony" is a euphemism for "raging hypocrisy."

Just in case you didn't figure that one out on your own... :)

AZGOP, the voter vault, and delicious irony

The "voter vault" is the AZGOP's database of voter info (contact info, demographic info, etc.) that is used by Republican candidates use during their campaigns.

The Arizona Republic ran a story detailing how the AZGOP has refused Republican Rick Romley access to the database because of his "past actions."

From the story -

How Republican is Republican enough?

Apparently, it requires toeing the most-conservative end of the party line, as Interim Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley recently discovered when he kicked off his campaign for a permanent job in the county administration building.

{snip}

Mecum questioned Romley's consulting work for Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat, and Romley's support of Democratic candidates who ran unsuccessfully against Sheriff Joe Arpaio, former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Gov. Jan Brewer, all Republicans.

Romley did not return calls for comment Wednesday.

But he was not the only Republican iced out of the database.

DeeDee Blase, who heads a conservative Hispanic Republican organization called Somos Republicans, has tried to access the database since October. Blase intended to contact Hispanics identified as independents to "bring them into the tent." She also hoped to nominate Hispanics to fill empty precinct-committeeman positions.

Her quest: "Where are the Hispanic areas so I can target them and educate them?"

Mecum replied to Blase with a similar e-mail, saying access to the voter information was a privilege, not a right. "Concerns revolving around endorsements and public statements you have made in recent months that make me very wary of granting you access to Voter Vault," he wrote.

The money quote was in the middle of the article.

"Voter Vault access is a privilege and not an express right for Republican candidates," Arizona Republican Party Executive Director Brett Mecum wrote in an April 21 e-mail to Romley.

Ummm...the AZGOP really may want to consider selecting another one of its functionaries to speak publicly regarding its Voter Vault. Or at least get a longer memory. In addition, either way, Mecum is probably not the most suitable gatekeeper for Voter Vault access.

From the Phoenix New Times, less than five months ago (emphasis mine) -

Arizona Republican Party Executive Director Brett Mecum is "creepy around women," according to a complaint filed with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.

A criminal complaint, dredged up by the Yellow Sheet, was filed against Mecum last month, and it claims he used voter registration records to find a woman's address and crash a party at her house.

Check out the affidavit here.

{snip}

The woman says she never gave Mecum her address, nor did she think he even knew where she lived.

When she asked him how he found her address, she claims Mecum told her he had a staffer look it up on Voter Vault, a state voter-registration list.

Based on the evidence, it seems that the AZGOP is OK with people who stalk women accessing its voter information, while people who criticize Joe Arpaio and Andy Thomas are completely unfit for access to the Voter Vault.

Welcome to the 21st Century GOP.

Note: I generally don't discuss the internal operations of the AZGOP. It's their party (and they'll cry if they want to :) ) and within the bounds of law (SCA, anyone?) and good taste (SCA again), they can do whatever they want to do to themselves.

But they served this one up like a rookie pitcher trying to blow a BP fastball by Albert Pujols.

A day where I almost sound like a conservative...

,,,emphasis on the *almost*,..

- In the wake of the news that the suspect in the attempted car-bombing of Times Square this weekend was able to buy a firearm after his name had been added to the government's terror watch list, there have been calls to bar people on that list from purchasing a firearm.

This is a bad idea that shouldn't go any farther than than a few election year press releases.

The conservatives will be against this because they oppose any restrictions on firearms possession.

I oppose this because nobody really knows how people get on the watch list (I could end up there because of this post, and won't know about it until the next time I fly somewhere) and it is almost literally riddled with errors.

Bottom line: People are innocent until proven guilty, even those suspected of association with terrorist activities/organizations. When somebody has been fairly and openly charged, tried, and convicted, then their civil rights can be curtailed. Until then, if they haven't actually done something to merit a firearms ban (felony conviction, mental illness, domestic violence), they should be able to purchase a gun like everyone else.


- On Monday, a Philadelphia teen ran onto the field during a Philadelphia Phillies' baseball game and ran all over the field like a complete idiot until he was tasered by a Philly PD officer, prompting calls for an investigation into the officer's use of the taser.

Do I think that the use of the taser was appropriate? No matter what the Philly PD says, NO. The kid wasn't a threat to himself or others; therefore there was no reason to use potentially lethal force on him.

I also think that the given the vast number of times that tasers have been used under circumstances that were questionable at best, the uproar over this one seems to be rooted in the fact there there were witnesses to this particular use, and that the suspect was a clean-cut (though profoundly dumb) white kid.

All incidents involving use of force by the police should be independently investigated, not just the incidents where there are thousands of witnesses.

BTW - I'm fully aware that if the officer *hadn't* tasered the kid and instead had tackled him (as is the norm for most such incidents) and the kid had been injured, there would be an uproar over that, too.

Sales Tax Town Hall on Thursday

From the website of the Arizona Humanities Council -

The partners of Project Civil Discourse in collaboration with the Arizona Republican, Democratic and Libertarian Parties present

Arizona's Sales Tax Referendum Town Hall: A Demonstration of Civil Dialogue and Discussion

Thursday, May 6, 2010 6:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.
AE England Building,
Civic Park Space
424 North Central Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85004

Free and Open to the Public

Registration is Required as Space is Limited

Click here to register

Many Americans are troubled by the lack of civility we see too often in politics today. We know that to solve the problems facing Arizona and the Nation, we must find a way to work together collaboratively and respectfully.

In response, Project Civil Discourse is partnering with the leaders of our state's political parties and over 20 organizations throughout Arizona to host a civil and respectful town hall about the implications of Prop. 100, the sales tax referendum, which is up for public vote on May 18th.

Arizona's Sales Tax Referendum Town Hall: A Demonstration of Civil Dialogue and Discussion will open with an objective, non-partisan explanation from Peter Burns about the state budget and how the outcome of the sales tax vote will affect Arizona. Participants will then join in roundtable discussions to share ideas, and learn from one another about this important issue facing our state. A report of the event will be widely distributed.

Project Civil Discourse's website is here.

It looks as if the discussion won't be "non-partisan" so much as "non-belligerent." It should be an interesting change-of-pace from the normal political discussions in Arizona.

Later...

Does Ken Bennett understand the job description for Secretary of State?

One of the biggest parts of the job description for SOS is the conduct of elections. He's supposed to make sure they go off without a hitch, not to be the cause of a hitch.

From the Arizona Daily Sun -

About 13,000 households in Coconino County were told to go to the wrong polling place on their state elections pamphlet due to an error by a contractor working for the state.

Ummm, yeah.

Got a radical new concept for Secretary Bennett - proofread.

BTW - This incident doesn't say much for the idea of privatizing vital government services (and for some reason, most people consider the fair, honest, and competent conduct of elections to be an integral part of our system of government.

Not a good week for Bennett, with this incident following on the heels of lawsuits against him and a company he runs for things like securities fraud, breach of contract, and failure to pay his employees.

Tonight, I'm proud that the Phoenix Suns are my hometown team

From Bright Side of the Sun -

In an extremely bold move, the Phoenix Suns as an organization made a strong political statement in opposition to the recent Arizona immigration bill.

Discussions on taking action began last week after the bill passed, with an idea that came from Robert Sarver, Managing Partner of the Phoenix Suns.

According to Steve Kerr, the team discussed it internally before going to the league for approval to both wear the 'Los Suns' jerseys, but also to come out publicly in this way.

{snip}

Ultimately, the decision was left up to the players, but in a locker room led by Steve Nash, it is no surprise how that turned out.

"I think the law is very misguided. I think it is unfortunately to the detriment of our society and our civil liberties and I think it is very important for us to stand up for things we believe in," Nash said of the bill. "I think the law obviously can target opportunities for racial profiling. Things we don't want to see and don't need to see in 2010."

I'm not the world's biggest basketball fan, but right now, the Phoenix Suns are at the top of my "good guys" list.

Thanks to David Safier at Blog for Arizona for the heads up on this...

Bobby Orr, the greatest hockey player ever

Inspired by a Facebook posting from one of my sisters, a posting that brought back some great memories. Add to that the excitement of the Bruins' playoff run this year, and a post here is born...

Some will argue with the title and toss out there names like Gretzky, Hull (fils or pere), Lemieux, Richard, and others.

Those are great players one and all, but they were just incredibly good at things others had done before them and have done since.

Bobby Orr was the one who changed the way that people viewed and played his position, defenseman.

Prior to his entry into the NHL, defensemen spent most of their ice time skating backwards, checking opposing forwards, or dumping the puck out of their own ends, allowing their own forwards to handle most of the offensive workload. Other than a few slapshots from the blue line during power plays, defensemen didn't score.

Orr changed that with exciting end-to-end rushes and nifty passing. He was the first and only defenseman to win the league's scoring title. In addition, he won multiple league and playoff MVP awards.

Anyway, a YouTube clip of some of Orr's highlights is here. As a bonus, it is set to the broadcast-opening theme music that the local station (WSBK) used at that time. It is rather iconic, as anyone who grew up in MA in the 70s immediately thinks of Bruins broadcasts whenever they hear it.

I'm embedding the video here, but most of the vids embedded here are cut off, and the video should be seen as fully as possible.

An open letter to President Obama on immigration and SB1070

This actually is a blog post, written in the form of a letter, but since I consider the "open letter" format to be lazy and pretentious unless it is sent to the titular recipient, it will be submitted to the White House via their website's online contact form.


Where it probably won't go any further than one of the interns or volunteers tasked with reading the thousands of emails that the White House receives every day, but at least I can say that I sent it. :)

By the way, while this will be a blog post, with the usual informality associated with such things, since it will also be sent to the White House, the snark will be kept to a minimum. Though anything in italics is added commentary from me and won't be included in the final letter to the WH. :)

Anyway, on to the letter...

Dear Mr. President,

My name is [cpmaz] and I am an Arizonan, and no, all of us are *not* insane.

As you are no doubt aware, recently Arizona enacted the nation's harshest anti-immigration law. While its supporters deny it, most observers view the law as one that specifically targets people of Hispanic ancestry and appearance, regardless of their immigration status.


The furor that has risen across the state, country, and the world over the passage and signing of SB1070 threatens to overwhelm and derail any plans you and your staff may have had set for your legislative agenda for the rest 2010.


The furor has overshadowed the discussion of financial regulation reforms and has pushed the discussion of measures to address climate change completely off the radar.


So be it.


It's time to prove that you're not just a good politician, but a great one.


In baseball, every "good" hitter can hit a pitch that they expect the pitcher to throw at them; the 'great' hitters overcome their own expectations and hit whatever the pitcher gives them.


Anybody major leaguer can hit a 3-0 fastball over the middle of the plate for a home run; the great ones can sit on that fastball but then see a hanging curve over the outside corner and take it the other way for a solid double.


Any politician can deal effectively with issues they they plan for; the great ones deal effectively with the ones that come across their plate, no matter their previous plans.


While climate change and financial regulation reform are important issues that need to be addressed, they may have to wait for the new Congress.

The rest of this Congress' time will be focused on the issue that the nativists in the Arizona legislature have heaved into their laps - addressing the issue of the flow of undocumented immigrants into the U.S., and the issue of how to handle the millions that are already in the U.S.


While many, and not just the nativists, advocate "solutions" that only address the immigrants themselves, almost no one advocates for measures that address the underlying cause of almost any non-warfare/natural disaster-inspired migration -

Economics.


Or more specifically, the soul-numbing poverty that afflicts a huge percentage of Mexicans and Central Americans. It's the kind of poverty that motivates men and women to abandon all that they have known, risk death by avaricious smugglers or unrelenting desert conditions, face the constant threat of arrest and deportation by American authorities, all for the dubious privilege of mowing American lawns, cleaning American houses, and picking American foodstuffs at incredibly low wages.


Any plan to address immigration and border issues, such as the latest "plan to end all plans", that address only the effects of immigration with enhanced walls and technology (security measures) and guarantees for businesses and workers (payoffs) but doesn't do anything to affect the underlying causes of immigration is doomed to fail or even to have any real impact.

However, any plan that doesn't include a lock 'em/deport 'em all main plank will incur the wrath and opposition of the Republicans in Congress, and any plan that doesn't protect the bottom lines of Big Business will garner the same wrath and opposition from both the Republicans and the conservative Democrats in Congress. In other words, such a plan would be doomed to fail in Congress.

It is time to push a plan that addresses the underlying causes behind immigration, yet does so in a way that can appeal to enough conservative Democrats (and maybe even a few Republicans) to make it through Congress.


Some multi-tasking is in order.


For example, a program similar to the old Civilian Conservation Corps could be implemented. However, instead of out-of-work Americans building roads in national parks, out-of-work Mexicans could build wind-power or solar power farms and the infrastructure necessary to distribute the power generated across impoverished northern Mexico and southern Arizona, or perhaps on a water desalination plant on the Baja coast that would send much-needed water to the southwestern U.S.

In addition to putting to work the very folks who would be most likely to consider crossing the border, reducing illegal immigration, it would strengthen the infrastructure needed for permanent economic development in one of the U.S.' primary trading partners. That combination would appeal to both the people who are advocating for migrants and the businesses that may object to a diminished supply of cheap labor - their payroll expenses may rise, but so will their revenue as their sales to Mexico and Mexicans rise.

Combine that with an increased military presence on the southern border with Mexico, from El Paso to Yuma. If officially deploying units to the border is politically or diplomatically unfeasible, perhaps the establishment of a "desert operations training center" or something similar. The desert along the border could become the training grounds for divisions about to deploy to the Middle East. They could practice patrolling with local terrain experts as guides, much as they would be doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course, the "local terrain experts" in the southern U.S. would be Border Patrol officers.

Such a move would both serve to quiet the nativists in AZ (and elsewhere) and the "secure the border first" Congressional critics of comprehensive immigration reform and to actually secure the border (most human and drug smugglers would think twice before crossing paths with a division of Marines or soldiers. Some would still try, but that number would probably be significantly reduced from the number of smugglers willing to attempt a desert crossing.)

The government of Mexico would surely object to some of this, but to be blunt, the government of Mexico is one of the few in the Western Hemisphere that the government of the United States can criticize for being too corrupt and inattentive to the needs of its people.

In other words, let them complain.

Now, I understand that one or more aspects of this idea may not be practicable, and this is surely an incomplete proposal, but Mr. President, you are a smart man who is surrounded by dozens of smart men and women.

You can work this out.

Mr. President, thank you for your time, and good luck.

Regards,

[cpmaz]

Update: I actually tried to submit the letter, but it is too long for the White House's contact form. So it is only a blog post, not a letter to the President.

Lucky interns. :)