It's that time of year. Many commentators do something along the lines of a "diamond/lump of coal" theme for their Christmas stocking pieces, I'm going for the practical this year.
This year, the list of Arizonans who deserve a little something special in their stockings includes...
...State Sen. Scott Bundgaard. In the wake of his "domestic violence incident" (a euphemism for "beating up his girlfriend by the side of a freeway"). After invoking legislative immunity from arrest (for misdemeanors, and only while the lege is actually in session), he is expending massive amounts of effort to keep the Senate Ethics Committee from weighing in on his conduct. Now he is suing the members of the committee to block any inquiry.
Bundgaard seems to think that he stands a chance in hell of winning reelection next year.
So here's to hoping that on Christmas Day, Bundgaard looks in his stocking and finds a clue.
...Marcia Busching. She has opened a committee for a run at a seat on the Arizona Corporation Commission. While the ACC is incredibly important, it's also incredibly low profile. On top of that, she'll be running against some incredibly well-funded Republicans who aren't shy about taking "contributions" from the industries that they are supposed to regulate.
So here's to hoping that on Christmas Day, Busching looks in her stocking and finds two things - a little good luck and a good communications person for her campaign. It better be a big stocking... :)
...Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. After seeing his buddy Russell Pearce go down in flames in November, the deluge just hasn't stopped. He's been coming under growing criticism for his sacrifice of investigations of rape and child molestation cases while funnelling MCSO resources into his never-ending anti-immigrant raids (which apparently are far more camera-friendly than actual police work).
Now, the US Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division has released the scathing report of its investigation of Arpaio's operation of MCSO, and "scathing" may be something of an understatement.
Instead of the usual combination of legalese and bureaucrat-ese that are the usual hallmarks of such things, it reads like it was written by someone who's a combination of Stephen King and Franz Kafka (OK, with a generous smattering of legalese and bureaucrat-ese thrown in. It *is* DOJ, after all :) .)
At this point, it looks like he should be less worried about winning reelection next year and more concerned with making an exit from office that doesn't involve an indictment.
However, he has spent the week declaring that it's all politics and that the investigation was a "sneak attack" and other similar utterances that prove that "denial" isn't just a river. Of course, the list of his misdeeds may be longer than the Nile, but I digress... :)
Anyway, Arpaio is going on and on, even though the investigation has been going on for years and he has been the one who has used his office for politically-motivated investigations.
So here's to hoping that on Christmas Day, Arpaio looks in his stocking and finds a clue (hope Santa has one to spare after giving one to Bundgaard).
This was fun. Have to do it again, soon. :)
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Thursday, December 15, 2011
How to undermine your credibility as a blogger/online commentator
I generally don't counter-post here. If I've got something to say about another's blog post, I just comment on the post.
However, some things just beg for a counter-post.
Plus you can't add a pic/screenshot to a comment, and I want to do that for this. :)
Earlier today, someone over at Sonoran Alliance put up something, complaining that State Sen. David Schapira (D-LD17) is exploring a run for Congress but has failed to file the appropriate paperwork with the FEC. The post included a link to the FEC page covering exploring or "testing the waters".
The problem?
The linked page actually refuted, not supported, their argument about Schapira.
To quote (emphasis added) -
It's a really good idea to *read* the sources one cites in support of an argument before, you know, citing it.
However, some things just beg for a counter-post.
Plus you can't add a pic/screenshot to a comment, and I want to do that for this. :)
Earlier today, someone over at Sonoran Alliance put up something, complaining that State Sen. David Schapira (D-LD17) is exploring a run for Congress but has failed to file the appropriate paperwork with the FEC. The post included a link to the FEC page covering exploring or "testing the waters".
The problem?
The linked page actually refuted, not supported, their argument about Schapira.
To quote (emphasis added) -
Before deciding to campaign for federal office, an individual may want to "test the waters"—in other words, explore the feasibility of becoming a candidate. An individual who merely test the waters, but does not campaign for office, does not have to register or report as a candidate even if the individual raises more than $5,000—the dollar threshold that would normally trigger registration. Nevertheless, funds raised to test the waters are subject to the Federal Election Campaign Act’s (the Act) contribution limitations and prohibitions. See Advisory Opinion 1998-18 [PDF].
It's a really good idea to *read* the sources one cites in support of an argument before, you know, citing it.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Corporation Commission meeting this week to gut solar power's future in Arizona
As the calendar moves inexorably to the holidays, most political bodies in the state try to get any work they need to perform done during the early part of the month so that they enjoy those holidays.
One of the side effects of the holiday rush is that the average member of the public isn't really paying attention to political matters during the holiday, both because of the large number of items on agendas and because they have a lot going on in their personal lives.
Many bodies use the chaos of the holidays and the laxity in public oversight to push through some of the less palatable measures before them to help minimize the ability of opponents to organize.
One of those bodies is the Arizona Corporation Commission, particularly since the election of former ALEC president Brenda Burns. While Gary Pierce, rumored to be mulling a run for Congress, is the chair of the ACC, the addition of Burns in 2010 signaled the change of the ACC from an industry regulatory agency into an industry front group. Burns replaced the term-limited Kris Mayes
The ACC is meeting Tuesday and Wednesday, and some of the items on its agenda illustrate just this.
Docket numbers E-01345A-11-0264 (APS), E-01933A-11-0269 (Tucson Electric Power) and E-04204A-11-0267 (UNS Electric) relate to approval of those companies' 2012 Renewable Energy Standard implementation plans (enter those docket numbers into the ACC's E-Docket webpage for more info).
Those items sound wonky and more than a little technical, because they are. However, one of the little gems hidden deep in the provisions of the plans is that they basically end any real incentives for those utility companies to "go solar."
However, while solar incentives are being slashed, tax breaks for coal-fired generating plants remain in place (note: those are controlled by the legislature, not the ACC). The impetus behind this appears to be a reverence for accounting principles over scientific principles -
The utility corporations have a lot of money tied up in their coal (and nuclear) facilities and want to maximize their profits from those. Solar power, particularly distributed solar power, is both more sustainable and lower cost than those, and would lead to lower profits.
On top of that, the Rs on the Commission have taken steps to declare that inefficient, high-cost energy generated by *trash burning* plants is "green", or renewable, and deserves as much or more support than solar power.
Apparently, for the three Rs on the ACC, Burn, Pierce, and Bob Stump, and the corporations that they are working for (instead of regulating), "energy efficiency" is more about generating profits in the most efficient way than in generating (and using) energy in a more efficient and sustainable way.
Anyway, people who are interested in weighing in on the renewable energy standard items, or any other items on the agenda, are advised to watch the meeting(s) this week via the ACC's online streaming video page. ACC meetings tend to run long, so you are better off staying aware of when your item of interest is coming up, and then heading down to the meeting than in trying to sit through the entire session.
One of the side effects of the holiday rush is that the average member of the public isn't really paying attention to political matters during the holiday, both because of the large number of items on agendas and because they have a lot going on in their personal lives.
Many bodies use the chaos of the holidays and the laxity in public oversight to push through some of the less palatable measures before them to help minimize the ability of opponents to organize.
One of those bodies is the Arizona Corporation Commission, particularly since the election of former ALEC president Brenda Burns. While Gary Pierce, rumored to be mulling a run for Congress, is the chair of the ACC, the addition of Burns in 2010 signaled the change of the ACC from an industry regulatory agency into an industry front group. Burns replaced the term-limited Kris Mayes
The ACC is meeting Tuesday and Wednesday, and some of the items on its agenda illustrate just this.
Docket numbers E-01345A-11-0264 (APS), E-01933A-11-0269 (Tucson Electric Power) and E-04204A-11-0267 (UNS Electric) relate to approval of those companies' 2012 Renewable Energy Standard implementation plans (enter those docket numbers into the ACC's E-Docket webpage for more info).
Those items sound wonky and more than a little technical, because they are. However, one of the little gems hidden deep in the provisions of the plans is that they basically end any real incentives for those utility companies to "go solar."
However, while solar incentives are being slashed, tax breaks for coal-fired generating plants remain in place (note: those are controlled by the legislature, not the ACC). The impetus behind this appears to be a reverence for accounting principles over scientific principles -
The utility corporations have a lot of money tied up in their coal (and nuclear) facilities and want to maximize their profits from those. Solar power, particularly distributed solar power, is both more sustainable and lower cost than those, and would lead to lower profits.
On top of that, the Rs on the Commission have taken steps to declare that inefficient, high-cost energy generated by *trash burning* plants is "green", or renewable, and deserves as much or more support than solar power.
Apparently, for the three Rs on the ACC, Burn, Pierce, and Bob Stump, and the corporations that they are working for (instead of regulating), "energy efficiency" is more about generating profits in the most efficient way than in generating (and using) energy in a more efficient and sustainable way.
Anyway, people who are interested in weighing in on the renewable energy standard items, or any other items on the agenda, are advised to watch the meeting(s) this week via the ACC's online streaming video page. ACC meetings tend to run long, so you are better off staying aware of when your item of interest is coming up, and then heading down to the meeting than in trying to sit through the entire session.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Short Attention Span Musing...
...Jan Brewer may yet be inducted into the Arizona Governor's Hall of Fame. Unfortunately for her, it's looking more and more likely it will be in the Mecham/Symington wing.
From the Phoenix New Times, written by James King -
As of right now, the feds have chosen not to file charges. However, given this, her close ties to industry lobbyists (i.e. longtime advisor/friend Chuck Coughlin, et. al.) and her predilection for pronouncing that she is above the laws and constitution of Arizona (i.e. the her effort to hijack the independent redistricting process), nobody will be shocked if she finds herself indicted before the end of her term.
...Do Brewer et. al.'s lawyers get paid extra every time they receive a slap-down from a judge?
I as that question because the best explanation for the continuing efforts to use the legal system to overthrow the AIRC is bill padding. On the heels of a separate decision by the AZ Supreme Court overturning the Rs' removal of the AIRC's independent chair, a judge at the Maricopa County Superior Court derailed another of the R efforts to take over the redistricting process when he ruled against their move to say that the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) violated the Open Meeting laws.
...The constant stream of losses isn't dissuading the Rs from continuing their attacks on the independence of the commission. The Arizona Capitol Times has a story about a number of changes the Rs in the legislature want to foist off on the commission and the process. However, they all seem to be ignoring one basic fact - the voters wanted an independent redistricting commission, so we set one up. If we wanted to set up an elected officials job security commission, we'd have done that, instead.
...Yeah, education is her number one priority, but doesn't say if *supporting* it or *eviscerating* it is what she most wants to do.
From the Yuma Sun, written by Chris McDaniel -
To be fair to Brewer, I think that Brewer's actual target is *public* education. As documented by the article ("University of Phoenix Yuma Learning Center"), she's been pretty consistent in her support of "for-profit" education companies (private and charter K-12, and private post-secondary), while cutting hundreds of million of dollars from public education.
...Joe Arpaio spent Saturday going after people with brown skin. Perhaps he'd have left them alone if they were dressed up as rapists and child molesters...
...From the "deja vu" department: State Rep. Jack Harper (R-Surprise!) has reintroduced one of his regular bills, a proposal to repeal the restriction on former legislators that makes them wait a year after leaving the legislature before they can return to lobby the legislature. This time around it is HB 2022.
Look for the measure to NOT pass, for at least two reasons:
1. It's an election year, and even AZ's Republicans don't want to be seen as that blatantly self-serving, especially because...
2. Most former legislators find ways around that particular restriction anyway, often by simply not registering as lobbyists.
Later...
From the Phoenix New Times, written by James King -
Federal authorities spent more than a year investigating Governor Jan Brewer's role in collecting Social Security benefits intended for her mentally ill son, Ronald, who currently is in a state hospital after being found not guilty by reason of insanity in 1990 on kidnapping and sexual assault charges.
The federal government, according to the Arizona Republic, which broke the story, was trying to determine whether $75,000 in benefits were improperly paid to the governor on behalf of her son.
Yes, Brewer is the same governor who earlier this year cut healthcare benefits for an estimated 135,000 poor Arizonans.
As of right now, the feds have chosen not to file charges. However, given this, her close ties to industry lobbyists (i.e. longtime advisor/friend Chuck Coughlin, et. al.) and her predilection for pronouncing that she is above the laws and constitution of Arizona (i.e. the her effort to hijack the independent redistricting process), nobody will be shocked if she finds herself indicted before the end of her term.
...Do Brewer et. al.'s lawyers get paid extra every time they receive a slap-down from a judge?
I as that question because the best explanation for the continuing efforts to use the legal system to overthrow the AIRC is bill padding. On the heels of a separate decision by the AZ Supreme Court overturning the Rs' removal of the AIRC's independent chair, a judge at the Maricopa County Superior Court derailed another of the R efforts to take over the redistricting process when he ruled against their move to say that the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) violated the Open Meeting laws.
...The constant stream of losses isn't dissuading the Rs from continuing their attacks on the independence of the commission. The Arizona Capitol Times has a story about a number of changes the Rs in the legislature want to foist off on the commission and the process. However, they all seem to be ignoring one basic fact - the voters wanted an independent redistricting commission, so we set one up. If we wanted to set up an elected officials job security commission, we'd have done that, instead.
...Yeah, education is her number one priority, but doesn't say if *supporting* it or *eviscerating* it is what she most wants to do.
From the Yuma Sun, written by Chris McDaniel -
“We have to get our population educated,” said Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer during a ribbon-cutting ceremony Tuesday at the University of Phoenix Yuma Learning Center.
The ceremony marked the grand reopening of the Student Resource Center. It was recently upgraded to include 23 high-speed computers, two interview rooms, a faculty room, and printing and copy services.
{snip}
The ceremony marked the grand reopening of the Student Resource Center. It was recently upgraded to include 23 high-speed computers, two interview rooms, a faculty room, and printing and copy services.
{snip}
Education is my No. 1 priority."
To be fair to Brewer, I think that Brewer's actual target is *public* education. As documented by the article ("University of Phoenix Yuma Learning Center"), she's been pretty consistent in her support of "for-profit" education companies (private and charter K-12, and private post-secondary), while cutting hundreds of million of dollars from public education.
...Joe Arpaio spent Saturday going after people with brown skin. Perhaps he'd have left them alone if they were dressed up as rapists and child molesters...
...From the "deja vu" department: State Rep. Jack Harper (R-Surprise!) has reintroduced one of his regular bills, a proposal to repeal the restriction on former legislators that makes them wait a year after leaving the legislature before they can return to lobby the legislature. This time around it is HB 2022.
Look for the measure to NOT pass, for at least two reasons:
1. It's an election year, and even AZ's Republicans don't want to be seen as that blatantly self-serving, especially because...
2. Most former legislators find ways around that particular restriction anyway, often by simply not registering as lobbyists.
Later...
Thursday, December 08, 2011
Committees update...
While redistricting is still a bit of a mess, with Arizona's Republican elected officials still trying to hijack the independent redistricting process, more and more candidates are stepping up.
Note: when district designations are used, they are for the current designation and used for reference only. They'll change after the new district maps are finalized.
...Republican John Lervold of Sierra Vista has started a committee for a run at a Congressional seat. Don't know anything about him.
...Republican State Senator Ron Gould of Lake Havasu City has formed an exploratory committee for a Congressional run. He's term-limited in the state senate, so the "exploratory" part of the committee is just pro forma. He's running. Period.
...Republican John Lyon of Glendale has formed a committee for a run at US Senate. Tea party type.
...Democrat Amanda Aguirre of Yuma, a former state senator, has announced that she is exploring a challenge to incumbent Democratic Congressman Raul Grijalva. I couldn't find the paperwork on the FEC's website, but will post it when it is available.
...Republican Peter Eidsness of Bullhead City has formed a committee for a run at an LD3 state representative
...Democrat Carol Lokare of Peoria has formed a committee for a run at the LD9 seat in the state senate.
...No new committees have been formed in Scottsdale or Tempe for municipal offices. However, since Tempe's elections are on a March/May schedule, candidates are already turning in signatures. Four of them have been certified for the March ballot -
Mark Mitchell and Michael Monti for mayor
Kolby Granville and Dick Foreman for council
...In Maricopa County news, Republican state representative Cecil Ash (LD18) has formed a committee for a run at the North Mesa Justice of the Peace office currently held by Lester Pearce, brother of the recently recalled former state senator Russell Pearce.
...Far and away, the race with the most candidates is one that most people haven't heard of - the governing boards of the Salt River Project (SRP). I'm not going to list them all, but so far I've found at least 17 candidates, most of whom seem to be incumbents of one sort or another. SRP's summary of its governance is here.
My summary: 1. Only landowners in SRP's area vote in the election. 2. The highest paid elected official in the state isn't the governor (~$120K) or the state's members of Congress (~$175K), but the president of SRP (~$180K)
Later...
Note: when district designations are used, they are for the current designation and used for reference only. They'll change after the new district maps are finalized.
...Republican John Lervold of Sierra Vista has started a committee for a run at a Congressional seat. Don't know anything about him.
...Republican State Senator Ron Gould of Lake Havasu City has formed an exploratory committee for a Congressional run. He's term-limited in the state senate, so the "exploratory" part of the committee is just pro forma. He's running. Period.
...Republican John Lyon of Glendale has formed a committee for a run at US Senate. Tea party type.
...Democrat Amanda Aguirre of Yuma, a former state senator, has announced that she is exploring a challenge to incumbent Democratic Congressman Raul Grijalva. I couldn't find the paperwork on the FEC's website, but will post it when it is available.
...Republican Peter Eidsness of Bullhead City has formed a committee for a run at an LD3 state representative
...Democrat Carol Lokare of Peoria has formed a committee for a run at the LD9 seat in the state senate.
...No new committees have been formed in Scottsdale or Tempe for municipal offices. However, since Tempe's elections are on a March/May schedule, candidates are already turning in signatures. Four of them have been certified for the March ballot -
Mark Mitchell and Michael Monti for mayor
Kolby Granville and Dick Foreman for council
...In Maricopa County news, Republican state representative Cecil Ash (LD18) has formed a committee for a run at the North Mesa Justice of the Peace office currently held by Lester Pearce, brother of the recently recalled former state senator Russell Pearce.
...Far and away, the race with the most candidates is one that most people haven't heard of - the governing boards of the Salt River Project (SRP). I'm not going to list them all, but so far I've found at least 17 candidates, most of whom seem to be incumbents of one sort or another. SRP's summary of its governance is here.
My summary: 1. Only landowners in SRP's area vote in the election. 2. The highest paid elected official in the state isn't the governor (~$120K) or the state's members of Congress (~$175K), but the president of SRP (~$180K)
Later...
Wednesday, December 07, 2011
Reminder: North Indian Bend Wash Superfund Area CIG meeting tonight
Just a quick reminder -
Tonight, Wednesday December 7, 2011, the Community Involvement Group (CIG) of the North Indian Bend Wash (NIBW) Superfund Area will meet.
Details:
Questions & Answers
Tonight, Wednesday December 7, 2011, the Community Involvement Group (CIG) of the North Indian Bend Wash (NIBW) Superfund Area will meet.
Details:
Time - 5:30 pm to 7:30 pm
Place - Scottsdale Center for the Performing Arts (Stage 2, Main Floor), 7380 E. Second Street
Agenda:
Results of Indian Bend Wash Five-Year Review
Overview of NIBW Groundwater Data
Well PCX-1 Long-Term Measures Schedule & Implementation
Later...
Saturday, December 03, 2011
Technical issues
FIve years is barely the beginning in human years, young adulthood in dog years, and maybe a week in tortoise years.
In laptop years it's at least two, perhaps three, complete generations.
Due to some technical issues*, it will be a few more days until the blog gets back up to speed.
* = The screen on my five-year old laptop finally gave up the ghost. While it stood me in good stead during the joyous 2008 election season, and the not-so-joyous 2010 election season, and dozens of legislative, government, and public meetings.
It's time to gratefully let it retire.
See you in a week or so.
...And I so wanted to write about Herman Cain, Jan Brewer, Lori "Cain couldn't have cheated on his wife because he didn't make a pass at me" Klein, and more... :)
In laptop years it's at least two, perhaps three, complete generations.
Due to some technical issues*, it will be a few more days until the blog gets back up to speed.
* = The screen on my five-year old laptop finally gave up the ghost. While it stood me in good stead during the joyous 2008 election season, and the not-so-joyous 2010 election season, and dozens of legislative, government, and public meetings.
It's time to gratefully let it retire.
See you in a week or so.
...And I so wanted to write about Herman Cain, Jan Brewer, Lori "Cain couldn't have cheated on his wife because he didn't make a pass at me" Klein, and more... :)
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Santa with an automatic weapon? What's next? Frosty with a flamethrower?
The ongoing effort to desensitize children and others to guns and weapons in society in general is, well, "ongoing"...and continuing apace...
From the Daily Mail (UK) -
The Daily Mail ran some additional pics from the Scottsdale Gun Club's Facebook page, including a couple with an infant and another with a small child, but those particular pics seem to be missing as of this writing.
Still, it seems that children are the target of this move, much like the tobacco industry used the cartoon character "Joe Camel" to market cigarettes to children and pre-teens.
It's simply propaganda, making firearms and weapons seem "warm and fuzzy" by associating them with Santa Claus.
In addition to efforts like this, working to associate firearms with something positive, they, through the NRA, also work to fight efforts by others to "de-weaponize" childhood, as shown in this column from an NRA bigwig from Christmas 2010. In it he admits that their "fight" for guns is a "cultural" one right after decrying a toy gun exchange event (turn in a toy gun, get a non-gun toy in return).
While the legislative push is meant to make it easier for their members to be able to obtain and carry almost any weapon without regulation, the cultural push is aimed mostly at younger Americans to "help" them grow into adulthood wanting to possess and carry (and use?) more and bigger firearms.
Another aspect of their effort is to introduce people to "gateway" weapons that are one step (OK, maybe two or three) above the toy guns that the NRA so ardently defends.
Like NRA-branded pepper spray (from the website of the vendor) -
Pepper spray may be "non-lethal" (yeah, right) and more socially acceptable than firearms (semi-automatic pistols with high-capacity magazines won't fit on a keychain anyway :) ), but it's still a weapon. And the introduction of weapons of any variety into stressful social situations can lead to chaos. Witness this year's Black Friday:
...A woman in California who pepper-sprayed other shoppers in a Wal-Mart to gain an advantage over those other shoppers in pursuit of one of a limited number of discounted video game systems
...A group of men who shot and critically wounded a shopper at another California Wal-Mart to rob him of his Black Friday purchases...
...At a Fayetteville, NC mall, two men who fired shots near people gathering for Black Friday "deals." No one was hurt and the motive is unknown as of this writing. But hey, at least it wasn't another Wal-Mart..
Think of the opportunities with other holidays!
How about -
"Make your St. Patrick's Day parade the talk of the town...and the county morgue! Hire our leprechaun with a double-barreled shillelagh to lead your parade and work DUI checkpoints! It's better than a breathalyzer!"
"Your children will squeal with delight when they wake up Easter morning and find that the Easter Bunny has left them a basketful of mini-grenades, now in a wide variety of colors, covering the entire Easter palette!"
"Celebrate the New Year with your handy, dandy, .40 caliber noisemaker*! *Except in Arizona. Remember to write to your legislator about repealing the crazy law that was enacted because some darn teenaged honor student got in the way of somebody else's celebratory bullet."
From the Daily Mail (UK) -
I want an assault rifle for Christmas or the reindeer gets it! Gun club invites children to pose with Santa... and their choice of firearmFrom the website of the Scottsdale Gun Club, the organization at the center of the latest controversy to subject Arizona to ridicule -
It's definitely one way of making sure Christmas goes off with a bang.
A gun club in Scottsdale, Arizona is inviting children to pose for pictures with Santa Claus – and a high-powered firearm.
Each family member carries their choice of weapon, from pistols to $80,000 machine guns.
The Daily Mail ran some additional pics from the Scottsdale Gun Club's Facebook page, including a couple with an infant and another with a small child, but those particular pics seem to be missing as of this writing.
Still, it seems that children are the target of this move, much like the tobacco industry used the cartoon character "Joe Camel" to market cigarettes to children and pre-teens.
It's simply propaganda, making firearms and weapons seem "warm and fuzzy" by associating them with Santa Claus.
In addition to efforts like this, working to associate firearms with something positive, they, through the NRA, also work to fight efforts by others to "de-weaponize" childhood, as shown in this column from an NRA bigwig from Christmas 2010. In it he admits that their "fight" for guns is a "cultural" one right after decrying a toy gun exchange event (turn in a toy gun, get a non-gun toy in return).
While the legislative push is meant to make it easier for their members to be able to obtain and carry almost any weapon without regulation, the cultural push is aimed mostly at younger Americans to "help" them grow into adulthood wanting to possess and carry (and use?) more and bigger firearms.
Another aspect of their effort is to introduce people to "gateway" weapons that are one step (OK, maybe two or three) above the toy guns that the NRA so ardently defends.
Like NRA-branded pepper spray (from the website of the vendor) -
Pepper spray may be "non-lethal" (yeah, right) and more socially acceptable than firearms (semi-automatic pistols with high-capacity magazines won't fit on a keychain anyway :) ), but it's still a weapon. And the introduction of weapons of any variety into stressful social situations can lead to chaos. Witness this year's Black Friday:
...A woman in California who pepper-sprayed other shoppers in a Wal-Mart to gain an advantage over those other shoppers in pursuit of one of a limited number of discounted video game systems
...A group of men who shot and critically wounded a shopper at another California Wal-Mart to rob him of his Black Friday purchases...
...At a Fayetteville, NC mall, two men who fired shots near people gathering for Black Friday "deals." No one was hurt and the motive is unknown as of this writing. But hey, at least it wasn't another Wal-Mart..
Think of the opportunities with other holidays!
How about -
"Make your St. Patrick's Day parade the talk of the town...and the county morgue! Hire our leprechaun with a double-barreled shillelagh to lead your parade and work DUI checkpoints! It's better than a breathalyzer!"
"Your children will squeal with delight when they wake up Easter morning and find that the Easter Bunny has left them a basketful of mini-grenades, now in a wide variety of colors, covering the entire Easter palette!"
"Celebrate the New Year with your handy, dandy, .40 caliber noisemaker*! *Except in Arizona. Remember to write to your legislator about repealing the crazy law that was enacted because some darn teenaged honor student got in the way of somebody else's celebratory bullet."
This post is written as part of the Media Matters Gun Facts fellowship. The purpose of the fellowship is to further Media Matters' mission to comprehensively monitor, analyze, and correct conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Some of the worst misinformation occurs around the issue of guns, gun violence, and extremism, the fellowship program is designed to fight this misinformation with facts.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Black and Blue Friday retail violence: Is there really any hope for us, and U.S.?
Over the course of the fall, we've witnessed the growth of the Occupy Wall Street protest from a single rag-tag, barely organized gathering of grass roots activists into a nationwide collection of...rag-tag, barely organized gatherings of grass roots activists. As befits a "barely organized" movement, the motivations for protesting expressed by the people involved are almost as numerous, and varied, as the people themselves.
One of the most common reasons for the protests, however, is outrage at the devastation caused to America's people and society by the unfettered greed of the 1%.
And, after weeks of being held in contempt by officialdom, all-but-completely shunned by the mainstream media, and being the subjects of outright violent assaults by police officers, it seemed like they were making inroads in the struggle to open up America's eyes to damage caused by the concentration of economic resources in the hands (and wallets and bank accounts and trust funds and so on...) of the country's wealthiest 1%.
Then came Black Friday, an MSM propaganda-fueled orgy of mania, materialism, and all too often, unfortunately, violence.
Thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people sacrificed part or all of their holiday to camp out at stores to await early openings, hoping to take advantage of some "great deals", only to see -
...A woman in California who pepper-sprayed other shoppers in a Wal-Mart to gain an advantage over those other shoppers in pursuit of one of a limited number of discounted video game systems
...A group of men who shot and critically wounded a shopper at another California Wal-Mart to rob him of his Black Friday purchases...
...At a Myrtle Beach, SC (stop me if you've heard this before) Wal-Mart, a woman shot in another Black Friday robbery attempt...
...At a Fayetteville, NC mall, two men who fired shots near people gathering for Black Friday "deals." No one was hurt and the motive is unknown as of this writing. But hey, at least it wasn't another Wal-Mart...
...At a South Charleston, WV Target, a man collapsed and died in the store, laying on the floor as shoppers stepped around or over him, ignoring his distress as they chased down "bargains". But hey, at least it was only callous disregard for human life. It could have been outright violence...
...In a Kinston, NC Wal-Mart (there's that word again), an off-duty police officer who pepper-sprayed a crowd with many children and elderly people in it. Lest you think the crowd was rioting, the only person arrested was a man who criticized the police officer for pepper-spraying a crowd with children and elderly persons in it. And lest you think the man was some wild-eyed radical, he was a former Kinston police officer himself and a 20 year veteran of the Army.
...In a Buckeye, AZ Wal-Mart, police injured an alleged shoplifting grandfather while arresting him. The police say that he concealed a video game by placing it in the waistband of his pants, under his shirt, and then resisted arrest. The suspect (or victim, depending on your perspective) says that he did that, but only to free his hands so that he could protect is small grandson in the surging crowd. In other words, either a grandfather tried to steal a video game and resisted arrest when he was caught or the police officers felt they lost control of the crowd and took out their frustration on a grandfather who was trying to protect his grandson.
Either way - shoplifting grandfather or violent police, it doesn't speak well of us.
All of this - the violence, the mindless materialism - doesn't do anything to benefit the average person.
The vast majority of the products sold on the day after Thanksgiving are "want its", not "need its", and the profits derived from the sales go to the 1%'ers, who are the owners of the "big box" retailers and malls.
Only in America - protest the 1% and get assaulted by the police (Occupy Wall Street), or go out of your way to transfer wealth to the 1% and get assaulted by the police and others (Black and Blue Friday shoppers).
One of the most common reasons for the protests, however, is outrage at the devastation caused to America's people and society by the unfettered greed of the 1%.
And, after weeks of being held in contempt by officialdom, all-but-completely shunned by the mainstream media, and being the subjects of outright violent assaults by police officers, it seemed like they were making inroads in the struggle to open up America's eyes to damage caused by the concentration of economic resources in the hands (and wallets and bank accounts and trust funds and so on...) of the country's wealthiest 1%.
Then came Black Friday, an MSM propaganda-fueled orgy of mania, materialism, and all too often, unfortunately, violence.
Thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people sacrificed part or all of their holiday to camp out at stores to await early openings, hoping to take advantage of some "great deals", only to see -
...A woman in California who pepper-sprayed other shoppers in a Wal-Mart to gain an advantage over those other shoppers in pursuit of one of a limited number of discounted video game systems
...A group of men who shot and critically wounded a shopper at another California Wal-Mart to rob him of his Black Friday purchases...
...At a Myrtle Beach, SC (stop me if you've heard this before) Wal-Mart, a woman shot in another Black Friday robbery attempt...
...At a Fayetteville, NC mall, two men who fired shots near people gathering for Black Friday "deals." No one was hurt and the motive is unknown as of this writing. But hey, at least it wasn't another Wal-Mart...
...At a South Charleston, WV Target, a man collapsed and died in the store, laying on the floor as shoppers stepped around or over him, ignoring his distress as they chased down "bargains". But hey, at least it was only callous disregard for human life. It could have been outright violence...
...In a Kinston, NC Wal-Mart (there's that word again), an off-duty police officer who pepper-sprayed a crowd with many children and elderly people in it. Lest you think the crowd was rioting, the only person arrested was a man who criticized the police officer for pepper-spraying a crowd with children and elderly persons in it. And lest you think the man was some wild-eyed radical, he was a former Kinston police officer himself and a 20 year veteran of the Army.
...In a Buckeye, AZ Wal-Mart, police injured an alleged shoplifting grandfather while arresting him. The police say that he concealed a video game by placing it in the waistband of his pants, under his shirt, and then resisted arrest. The suspect (or victim, depending on your perspective) says that he did that, but only to free his hands so that he could protect is small grandson in the surging crowd. In other words, either a grandfather tried to steal a video game and resisted arrest when he was caught or the police officers felt they lost control of the crowd and took out their frustration on a grandfather who was trying to protect his grandson.
Either way - shoplifting grandfather or violent police, it doesn't speak well of us.
All of this - the violence, the mindless materialism - doesn't do anything to benefit the average person.
The vast majority of the products sold on the day after Thanksgiving are "want its", not "need its", and the profits derived from the sales go to the 1%'ers, who are the owners of the "big box" retailers and malls.
Only in America - protest the 1% and get assaulted by the police (Occupy Wall Street), or go out of your way to transfer wealth to the 1% and get assaulted by the police and others (Black and Blue Friday shoppers).
Friday, November 25, 2011
The 2012 session of the Arizona Legislature hasn't started yet, but it's easy to see it's going to be a long one
In approximately a month and a half, the 2012 session of the Arizona Legislature will start, and while there will be some major differences from the 2011 session (new Speaker of the House, new President of the Senate, no Russell Pearce!!), some things don't change.
Usually, sitting legislators start "pre-filing" bills starting around two months before the start of a session, and this year is no different.
Sometimes, as with Sen. David Schapira's SB1001 last year (restoring transplant coverage to AHCCCS), the early measures are meant to make a statement about where the priorities of the lege should be, knowing full well that the bill(s) won't pass (and Schapira's SB1001 was never even heard in committee, much less given a floor vote).
Other times, the bills are introduced to give the sponsors an early start on lobbying their colleagues for passage.
The first couple of bills introduced this year, including a proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution, have to do with creating a mechanism for exchanging state trust lands for the purpose of protecting military reservations from encroachment by developments (this summary may be a little oversimplified, but these bills aren't the focus of the post. If you're interested, the bill is here, the proposed amendment is here).
The amendment is necessary because under the Arizona Constitution, those trust lands can only be sold or transferred for the benefit of the state's education system.
The lege has been trying to crack that restriction for years. They tried a similar scheme in 2010, only to see the measure go down to defeat, at least in part because a majority of Arizona's voters don't trust the legislature or its intentions.
In addition to those, at around the same time, Rep. Jack Harper (R-Surprise!) filed a different amendment proposal, this one to overturn the prohibitions in the AZ Constitution on damage awards in lawsuits. They've tried this one before, but limiting or eliminating punitive damage awards is a pet project of corporate lobbyists and their "friends"/tools in Congress and state legislatures across the country.
After that, there were a few innocuous "technical corrections" bills introduced by Rep. Judy "Birther" Burges. Officially, technical corrections bills are supposed to contain minor, non-controversial fixes to things like typos, misspellings, and bad grammar/legalese to laws, and generally speaking, the bills do just that. However, they rarely pass the lege as technical corrections bills. Mostly, they exist to serve as "vehicle" bills that can be changed late in the legislative session by "strike everything" amendments, aka "strikers.".
Strikers frequently turn previously innocuous bills (like technical corrections bills) into utter bile. Of course some bills, like 2010's infamous SB1070, are amended only in specific language, not actual intent. For example, SB1070 started off life as an ugly anti-immigrant bill and was amended into an ugly anti-immigrant bill.
All this background brings us to Rep. John Fillmore (R-Apache Junction). While until now he has been an almost-unknown backbencher, it looks like he wants to make a splash during this coming election year.
Among others, he has proposed bills that...
...would halve the maximurm income level to qualify for coverage under the Arizona Long Term Care System (ALTCS). ALTCS provides coverage to low-income senior citizens or disabled who need long-term medical care (i.e. - nursing home, assisted living, or ongoing home health aides)
...would arbitrarily impose a limit on the amount of "respite care" that someone covered by ALTCS could receive in a calendar year at 360 hours. Respite care is perhaps best characterized as a relief pitcher for long-term caregivers.
...would grant a teacher the right to kick any student out of class for any reason, and that action would not be reviewable by or appealable to anybody. Fillmore's proposal is written so broadly that a teacher (say, a follower of Russell Pearce's) could order a student out of class because the student's skin is, shall we say, too tan, and there would be no recourse (though a federal court would probably step in eventually).
...would give school principals the authority to fire any teacher in their schools for any reason, subject to the review and approval of the district's school superintendent. The measure also includes a clause that bars school district governing boards from entering into collective bargaining agreements that inhibit the ability to exercise that authority, including the establishment of a "due process" process for the teachers. No AZ Republican wants to appear to be "pro-teacher"... The measure also takes control of textbook selection from the hands of the governing boards of individual school district and bestows it on the school superintendent of the county in which the school district is located.
...would bar courts from paying for, under any circumstances, court-ordered anger management and domestic violence counseling for defendants.
...would establish a minimum cost to the beneficiaries of state employee health insurance plans of 18 percent of the overall cost. Currently, there is no minimum or maximum limit in statute. While this measure would establish a minimum limit, it would not establish a maximum cost to the beneficiaries.
...and in his piece de resistance, Fillmore has proposed an amendment to the AZ Constitution regarding punitive damage awards, like Harper's proposal above. However, this one has an "Isn't that crazy, quirky, loony Arizona just so precious?" sort of way -
His proposal doesn't eliminate punitive damage awards, Instead, it would mandate the confiscation of such awards by the state and puts the monies into a fund that would be dedicated to funding K-12 education in Arizona.
If passed, not only would this measure effectively reduce the number of lawsuits with punitive damage awards (if the victims of injuries cannot benefit from such lawsuits, why would they file them?), it would also serve as a smokescreen to cover moves to reduce education funding in AZ (eventually, the lege would base the budget for education on projections of the amount of money available in the fund established in this proposal, and when those funds decreased, they would use it as an excuse to further cut education).
This measure, as with Harper's, could very well be a welcoming gift for next week's conference of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an organization crafted to facilitate corporate influence over state level legislation. The conference will be held in a Scottsdale resort.
ALEC has long pushed for corporation-protecting limits on lawsuits in general and punitive damage awards in particular (examples here, here and here, courtesy ALECExposed.org).
Fillmore and Harper are among the many members of the R caucus in the AZ lege who are also members of ALEC. but in Arizona, that association isn't limited to the legislature. Check out this notice from the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) -
I'd love to be able to tell you that the above measures are likely to be the worst offered up by Republican AZ legislators during the coming session, but it seems likely that they are going to for the "full nutty" this session. They realize that one of two possibilities exist.
Either a majority of voters will NOT hold them responsible for their shameless disregard for the will of the voter (attacks on the independence of the voter-established independent redistricting process, their brazen contempt for the rule of law (assaulting a woman by the side of a Phoenix freeway, pointing a gun at a reporter in the Senate building), or their sacrifice of the interests of their "official" constituents (no jobs, gutting education) on the altar of corporate profits (corporate tax cuts paid for by gutting education and rest of the social infrastructure in AZ), or this year will be their last best chance to wreak unchecked havoc upon the state, for at least a couple of election cycles.
Usually, sitting legislators start "pre-filing" bills starting around two months before the start of a session, and this year is no different.
Sometimes, as with Sen. David Schapira's SB1001 last year (restoring transplant coverage to AHCCCS), the early measures are meant to make a statement about where the priorities of the lege should be, knowing full well that the bill(s) won't pass (and Schapira's SB1001 was never even heard in committee, much less given a floor vote).
Other times, the bills are introduced to give the sponsors an early start on lobbying their colleagues for passage.
The first couple of bills introduced this year, including a proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution, have to do with creating a mechanism for exchanging state trust lands for the purpose of protecting military reservations from encroachment by developments (this summary may be a little oversimplified, but these bills aren't the focus of the post. If you're interested, the bill is here, the proposed amendment is here).
The amendment is necessary because under the Arizona Constitution, those trust lands can only be sold or transferred for the benefit of the state's education system.
The lege has been trying to crack that restriction for years. They tried a similar scheme in 2010, only to see the measure go down to defeat, at least in part because a majority of Arizona's voters don't trust the legislature or its intentions.
In addition to those, at around the same time, Rep. Jack Harper (R-Surprise!) filed a different amendment proposal, this one to overturn the prohibitions in the AZ Constitution on damage awards in lawsuits. They've tried this one before, but limiting or eliminating punitive damage awards is a pet project of corporate lobbyists and their "friends"/tools in Congress and state legislatures across the country.
After that, there were a few innocuous "technical corrections" bills introduced by Rep. Judy "Birther" Burges. Officially, technical corrections bills are supposed to contain minor, non-controversial fixes to things like typos, misspellings, and bad grammar/legalese to laws, and generally speaking, the bills do just that. However, they rarely pass the lege as technical corrections bills. Mostly, they exist to serve as "vehicle" bills that can be changed late in the legislative session by "strike everything" amendments, aka "strikers.".
Strikers frequently turn previously innocuous bills (like technical corrections bills) into utter bile. Of course some bills, like 2010's infamous SB1070, are amended only in specific language, not actual intent. For example, SB1070 started off life as an ugly anti-immigrant bill and was amended into an ugly anti-immigrant bill.
All this background brings us to Rep. John Fillmore (R-Apache Junction). While until now he has been an almost-unknown backbencher, it looks like he wants to make a splash during this coming election year.
Among others, he has proposed bills that...
...would halve the maximurm income level to qualify for coverage under the Arizona Long Term Care System (ALTCS). ALTCS provides coverage to low-income senior citizens or disabled who need long-term medical care (i.e. - nursing home, assisted living, or ongoing home health aides)
...would arbitrarily impose a limit on the amount of "respite care" that someone covered by ALTCS could receive in a calendar year at 360 hours. Respite care is perhaps best characterized as a relief pitcher for long-term caregivers.
...would grant a teacher the right to kick any student out of class for any reason, and that action would not be reviewable by or appealable to anybody. Fillmore's proposal is written so broadly that a teacher (say, a follower of Russell Pearce's) could order a student out of class because the student's skin is, shall we say, too tan, and there would be no recourse (though a federal court would probably step in eventually).
...would give school principals the authority to fire any teacher in their schools for any reason, subject to the review and approval of the district's school superintendent. The measure also includes a clause that bars school district governing boards from entering into collective bargaining agreements that inhibit the ability to exercise that authority, including the establishment of a "due process" process for the teachers. No AZ Republican wants to appear to be "pro-teacher"... The measure also takes control of textbook selection from the hands of the governing boards of individual school district and bestows it on the school superintendent of the county in which the school district is located.
...would bar courts from paying for, under any circumstances, court-ordered anger management and domestic violence counseling for defendants.
...would establish a minimum cost to the beneficiaries of state employee health insurance plans of 18 percent of the overall cost. Currently, there is no minimum or maximum limit in statute. While this measure would establish a minimum limit, it would not establish a maximum cost to the beneficiaries.
...and in his piece de resistance, Fillmore has proposed an amendment to the AZ Constitution regarding punitive damage awards, like Harper's proposal above. However, this one has an "Isn't that crazy, quirky, loony Arizona just so precious?" sort of way -
His proposal doesn't eliminate punitive damage awards, Instead, it would mandate the confiscation of such awards by the state and puts the monies into a fund that would be dedicated to funding K-12 education in Arizona.
If passed, not only would this measure effectively reduce the number of lawsuits with punitive damage awards (if the victims of injuries cannot benefit from such lawsuits, why would they file them?), it would also serve as a smokescreen to cover moves to reduce education funding in AZ (eventually, the lege would base the budget for education on projections of the amount of money available in the fund established in this proposal, and when those funds decreased, they would use it as an excuse to further cut education).
This measure, as with Harper's, could very well be a welcoming gift for next week's conference of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an organization crafted to facilitate corporate influence over state level legislation. The conference will be held in a Scottsdale resort.
ALEC has long pushed for corporation-protecting limits on lawsuits in general and punitive damage awards in particular (examples here, here and here, courtesy ALECExposed.org).
Fillmore and Harper are among the many members of the R caucus in the AZ lege who are also members of ALEC. but in Arizona, that association isn't limited to the legislature. Check out this notice from the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) -
Notice of a Joint Appearance of a Quorum of CommissionersPlease note: The ACC is supposed to *regulate* corporations, not *party* with them. Of course, current ACC member Brenda Burns is a former president of ALEC, so she (and the other Rs on the ACC) may not make that distinction.
(Not an Official Meeting of the Arizona Corporation Commission)
November 30 - December 2, 2011
Location:
The Westin Kierland Resort & Spa
6902 East Greenway Parkway
Scottsdale, Arizona 85254
This notice is provided as a courtesy to the public that three or more Commissioners may be present at the above location to attend the American Legislative Exchange Council, States and Nation Policy Summit. The Commissioners attending this meeting will not vote on any issue.
I'd love to be able to tell you that the above measures are likely to be the worst offered up by Republican AZ legislators during the coming session, but it seems likely that they are going to for the "full nutty" this session. They realize that one of two possibilities exist.
Either a majority of voters will NOT hold them responsible for their shameless disregard for the will of the voter (attacks on the independence of the voter-established independent redistricting process, their brazen contempt for the rule of law (assaulting a woman by the side of a Phoenix freeway, pointing a gun at a reporter in the Senate building), or their sacrifice of the interests of their "official" constituents (no jobs, gutting education) on the altar of corporate profits (corporate tax cuts paid for by gutting education and rest of the social infrastructure in AZ), or this year will be their last best chance to wreak unchecked havoc upon the state, for at least a couple of election cycles.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Brewer's latest move to seize control of the redistricting process rebuffed by AZ Supreme Court
...aka - the Hail Mary pass fell harmlessly to the ground...
Late this afternoon, the Arizona Supreme Court issued an order regarding the "motion to reconsider" its decision to reinstate Independent Colleen Mathis to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).
To sum up - motion to stay the reinstatement of Mathis is denied, motion to reconsider the entire previous order is denied, and the Court clarified that in her letter removing Mathis from the AIRC, Governor Jan Brewer didn't document any acts or behavior that rises to the level of being constitutionally sufficient to justify Mathis' removal.
In other words, they said "What part of "NO!" did you not understand?"only they did it in a judge-y way. Very proper, very dignified, and lots of big words. :))
The order:
After that, look for federal intervention by the US Department of Justice.
And after that, or even if federal intervention doesn't happen, look for AZ's Republicans to have their asses handed to them next November.
Willfully and maliciously overriding the will of the voters for reasons that range from purely partisan to purely personal tends to tick off voters, even those who normally don't pay much attention between elections.
On a related note: the AIRC has scheduled three business meetings next week in Tempe, at the Fiesta Inn at the SW corner of Priest and Broadway.
On Tuesday, they will meet at 1:30 p.m. (agenda); Wednesday at 4 p.m. (agenda); Thursday at 1 p.m. (agenda).
Late this afternoon, the Arizona Supreme Court issued an order regarding the "motion to reconsider" its decision to reinstate Independent Colleen Mathis to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).
To sum up - motion to stay the reinstatement of Mathis is denied, motion to reconsider the entire previous order is denied, and the Court clarified that in her letter removing Mathis from the AIRC, Governor Jan Brewer didn't document any acts or behavior that rises to the level of being constitutionally sufficient to justify Mathis' removal.
In other words, they said "What part of "NO!" did you not understand?"only they did it in a judge-y way. Very proper, very dignified, and lots of big words. :))
The order:
IT IS ORDERED granting Respondents’ Joint Motion for Expedited Consideration.Even before I received the order in my inbox, the reaction from House Speaker Andy Tobin was there. Needless to say (but I'm going to say it anyway :) ), he's ratcheting up the rhetoric -
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Respondents’ Joint Motion to Stay Order Reinstating Petitioner-Intervenor Mathis Pending Reconsideration.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Motion to Intervene of Andrew M. Tobin, Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives and Joinder in the Governor and Senate’s Motion for Reconsideration. The Court will treat the Motion as an amicus brief.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Respondents’ Joint Motion to Reconsider Order of November 17, 2011, except insofar as the motion seeks clarification of the Order. As the Order notes, the Court accepted jurisdiction of the petition for special action, having concluded that it has jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 5(1) of the Arizona Constitution. The Court further concluded that the issues presented are not political questions committed by the Constitution to the unreviewable discretion of the other branches of government.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED clarifying the Court’s November 17, 2011 Order as it concerns the letter of November 1, 2011, from the Acting Governor to Colleen Mathis. The Order states that the November 1, 2011 letter does not demonstrate “substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office, or inability to discharge the duties of office” as required under Article 4, Part 2, Section 1(10) of the Arizona Constitution. Respondents seek clarification whether the Court’s conclusion was based on the format of the November 1, 2011 letter, which stated that the Governor had determined that Mathis had “failed to conduct the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission’s business in meetings open to the public, and failed to adjust the grid map as necessary to accommodate all of the goals set forth in Arizona Constitution Art. 4, Pt. 2, § 1(14).”
The Governor’s November 1, 2011 letter constitutes her findings of grounds for the removal of Mathis. The Court’s conclusion that the letter does not demonstrate “substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office, or inability to discharge the duties of office” is based on the letter’s substance, not its format. The letter does not, as a matter of law, identify conduct that provides a constitutional basis for removal.
One ground identified in the Governor’s letter is a failure to conduct the commission’s business in meetings open to the public.
The Constitution directs that “[w]here a quorum is present, the independent redistricting commission shall conduct business in meetings open to the public, with 48 or more hours public notice provided.” Ariz. Const., Art. IV, Pt. 2, § 1(12). The statutory Open Meeting Law defines “meeting” in terms of a gathering of a quorum, A.R.S. § 38-431(4), and it directs that all meetings of public bodies shall be public meetings and that legal action of Supreme Court Case No. CV-11-0313-SA public bodies shall occur in public meetings. Id. § 38-431.01(A). A failure to conduct the business of the commission in meetings open to the public must at least involve violations of these laws for it to constitute “substantial neglect of duty” or “gross misconduct.” (We do not decide whether the constitutional provision preempts any statutory Open Meeting Law requirements, an issue that is being litigated in another forum.) There is, however, no allegation of any non-public meeting of a quorum of the commission in the Governor’s October 26, 2011 letter or in the responses thereto. Nor does the Governor’s November 1, 2011 letter find that a non-public meeting of a quorum of the commission occurred.
With regard to preparing maps, the commissioners perform legislative tasks in which they must “balance competing concerns” and “exercise discretion in choosing among potential adjustments to the grid map,” Ariz. Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Arizona Indep. Redistricting Comm’n, 220 Ariz. 587, 597 ¶ 28, 208 P.3d 676, 686 (2009), and the commission’s adoption of final maps is subject to judicial review for compliance with the Constitution’s procedural and substantive requirements. Id. at 596 ¶ 24, 208 P.3d at 685. The Governor’s disagreement with commissioners over whether they have properly considered constitutional criteria for adjusting the grid map before they have completed final maps is not, as a matter of law, a constitutional basis for removal.
“With the Supreme Court having clearly overstepped its bounds, I continue to believe that the reinstatement of Colleen Mathis as chairwoman of the Independent Redistricting Commission represents a dangerous threat to the independent process Arizona voters want and deserve. I fully support any and all efforts by the Governor to immediately remove Chairwoman Mathis and call the Legislature into special session to refer a measure to the ballot allowing voters the opportunity to repeal this commission, which has shown total disregard for the Arizona Constitution. We must act immediately to ensure that this broken and biased process does not continue to unfold.”Look for an attempt to put a repeal of Prop 106 (the ballot question in 2000 that created the independent redistricting process) before the voters of the Republican primary in February.
After that, look for federal intervention by the US Department of Justice.
And after that, or even if federal intervention doesn't happen, look for AZ's Republicans to have their asses handed to them next November.
Willfully and maliciously overriding the will of the voters for reasons that range from purely partisan to purely personal tends to tick off voters, even those who normally don't pay much attention between elections.
On a related note: the AIRC has scheduled three business meetings next week in Tempe, at the Fiesta Inn at the SW corner of Priest and Broadway.
On Tuesday, they will meet at 1:30 p.m. (agenda); Wednesday at 4 p.m. (agenda); Thursday at 1 p.m. (agenda).
Monday, November 21, 2011
"Motion to reconsider": Brewer-speak for "Hail Mary"
During football games, often at the end of a half or the end of a game, one team that is desperate to score lines up its receivers on one side of the field and sends them down the field to the end zone while the quarterback heaves a pass into the crowd of players
While occasionally it works, the vast majority of the time the ball is tipped once or twice and falls to the ground incomplete.
However, teams still use the tactic because they have nothing to lose by it.
Which brings us to Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer and her paid attack dog/mouthpiece, attorney Lisa Hauser.
Steve at Arizona Eagletarian has posted links to various new filings in the case, including a motion to reconsider from Brewer and Hauser. In it they petition the Arizona Supreme Court to "reconsider" (aka - change its mind about) its order last week reinstating Colleen Mathis to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).
Their motion is basically a re-presentation of their original argument, that Brewer can remove Mathis or any member from the AIRC for any reason she wants, including a bad haircut. All Brewer has to do is call it "gross misconduct."
The argument didn't work last week and it almost certainly won't work this week. Maybe it could, if instead of just disagreeing with the court's decision, they pointed out some procedural error or presented some heretofore unknown facts, but they didn't.
I don't expect the motion to work - Brewer isn't Doug Flutie, Hauser isn't Gerard Phelan and the AZ Supes aren't the University of Miami football team of the mid-1980s (not enough felony convictions) - but like every other Hail Mary pass ever thrown, the rationale behind it is "hey, if it doesn't work, we're no worse off than we were before."
They have nothing to lose if it doesn't work and a lot to gain if it does. In addition, as Steve points out in his post, it may actually just be a PR move to help rationalize a special session of the lege to refer a ballot question in an attempt to overturn the proposition that originally set up the independent redistricting process.
I don't think that'll work either, but they've got a better chance that way than in court, especially if they go with the scheme proposed by many Republican legislators - put the issue to a vote during the Republican presidential primary.
Note to readers: I almost named this post " " "Motion to reconsider": Brewer-speak for "Ave Maria" " but decided the BC football reference was enough. Didn't need to go the full Catholic on everybody. :)
While occasionally it works, the vast majority of the time the ball is tipped once or twice and falls to the ground incomplete.
However, teams still use the tactic because they have nothing to lose by it.
Which brings us to Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer and her paid attack dog/mouthpiece, attorney Lisa Hauser.
Steve at Arizona Eagletarian has posted links to various new filings in the case, including a motion to reconsider from Brewer and Hauser. In it they petition the Arizona Supreme Court to "reconsider" (aka - change its mind about) its order last week reinstating Colleen Mathis to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).
Their motion is basically a re-presentation of their original argument, that Brewer can remove Mathis or any member from the AIRC for any reason she wants, including a bad haircut. All Brewer has to do is call it "gross misconduct."
The argument didn't work last week and it almost certainly won't work this week. Maybe it could, if instead of just disagreeing with the court's decision, they pointed out some procedural error or presented some heretofore unknown facts, but they didn't.
I don't expect the motion to work - Brewer isn't Doug Flutie, Hauser isn't Gerard Phelan and the AZ Supes aren't the University of Miami football team of the mid-1980s (not enough felony convictions) - but like every other Hail Mary pass ever thrown, the rationale behind it is "hey, if it doesn't work, we're no worse off than we were before."
They have nothing to lose if it doesn't work and a lot to gain if it does. In addition, as Steve points out in his post, it may actually just be a PR move to help rationalize a special session of the lege to refer a ballot question in an attempt to overturn the proposition that originally set up the independent redistricting process.
I don't think that'll work either, but they've got a better chance that way than in court, especially if they go with the scheme proposed by many Republican legislators - put the issue to a vote during the Republican presidential primary.
Note to readers: I almost named this post " " "Motion to reconsider": Brewer-speak for "Ave Maria" " but decided the BC football reference was enough. Didn't need to go the full Catholic on everybody. :)
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Guest post: Wall Street, part 2
From Jerry Gettinger of Scottsdale...
What's Broken on The Street
My previous essay proffered the idea that Wall Street was broken and needed a major overhaul in order to "fix" it. First, it is important to identify what is broken and then we can suggest how to fix it.
30 years ago, The Street was the center of the world when it came to Capitalism. Socialists saw it as the root of all evil relating to our society. Graduates saw the Street as a most desirable career choice.
Companies such as MCI received capital to innovate and challenge competitors with new ideas and inventions. Money flowed from investor to company. Employment thrived with every new business. Brokers made money, investors made money and business made money. An example of capitalism working the way it was meant to.
What happened?
No one change can be attributed to the malfunction. Several changes in the mobile seem to be responsible. Competition for listings among exchanges, making memberships (to exchanges) more available, globalization and, probably the most important factor that caused changes... computers. As competition between exchanges grew, rules concerning what type of trading was acceptable changed in order to attract speculators. This type of business served no purpose but to generate profits. It did not take long for "program trading" to dominate transactions on various exchanges.
Computer generated trades and anomalies between and within exchanges generated substantial profits with little or no risk. It is worthwhile noting that not one of these transactions sent monies to corporations for expansion or modernization. In every instance, the only reason for the transaction is to make money! A financial dead end!
Let me explain how this type of trading works: suppose there is a stock that trades on both the NYSE and the German Stock Exchange. At a particular time, there is 5-cent difference in the price with the stock on the NYSE selling at $23.10, and on the German Exchange at $23.05. Computers that are programed to monitor for this situation will simultaneously buy on the German Exchange and Sell on the NYSE for a 5 cent profit. Not much, you think? Multiply a nickel times 200 million shares! Then, take that figure and multiply by six, (that number is an example of how many trades of this sort is done daily by one broker. It may be more or less.). The transaction delivers riskless profits that serve no function in the economy. No job creation, no business expansion. Just more money.
In addition, the "Bush tax cuts" have encouraged this type of business by taxing the income from this type of transaction and all related transactions at a more favorable rate.
That is the problem.
The game, which use to have rules to protect the individual now have none. Wall Street has gone from a level playing field to a 90-degree hill for the single investor. The market place is completely distorted. The individual is at the mercy of the big traders (spelled computers). An estimated 85% of the trades on the NYSE are computer generated.
What's Broken on The Street
My previous essay proffered the idea that Wall Street was broken and needed a major overhaul in order to "fix" it. First, it is important to identify what is broken and then we can suggest how to fix it.
30 years ago, The Street was the center of the world when it came to Capitalism. Socialists saw it as the root of all evil relating to our society. Graduates saw the Street as a most desirable career choice.
Companies such as MCI received capital to innovate and challenge competitors with new ideas and inventions. Money flowed from investor to company. Employment thrived with every new business. Brokers made money, investors made money and business made money. An example of capitalism working the way it was meant to.
What happened?
No one change can be attributed to the malfunction. Several changes in the mobile seem to be responsible. Competition for listings among exchanges, making memberships (to exchanges) more available, globalization and, probably the most important factor that caused changes... computers. As competition between exchanges grew, rules concerning what type of trading was acceptable changed in order to attract speculators. This type of business served no purpose but to generate profits. It did not take long for "program trading" to dominate transactions on various exchanges.
Computer generated trades and anomalies between and within exchanges generated substantial profits with little or no risk. It is worthwhile noting that not one of these transactions sent monies to corporations for expansion or modernization. In every instance, the only reason for the transaction is to make money! A financial dead end!
Let me explain how this type of trading works: suppose there is a stock that trades on both the NYSE and the German Stock Exchange. At a particular time, there is 5-cent difference in the price with the stock on the NYSE selling at $23.10, and on the German Exchange at $23.05. Computers that are programed to monitor for this situation will simultaneously buy on the German Exchange and Sell on the NYSE for a 5 cent profit. Not much, you think? Multiply a nickel times 200 million shares! Then, take that figure and multiply by six, (that number is an example of how many trades of this sort is done daily by one broker. It may be more or less.). The transaction delivers riskless profits that serve no function in the economy. No job creation, no business expansion. Just more money.
In addition, the "Bush tax cuts" have encouraged this type of business by taxing the income from this type of transaction and all related transactions at a more favorable rate.
That is the problem.
The game, which use to have rules to protect the individual now have none. Wall Street has gone from a level playing field to a 90-degree hill for the single investor. The market place is completely distorted. The individual is at the mercy of the big traders (spelled computers). An estimated 85% of the trades on the NYSE are computer generated.
Short Attention Span Musing - housekeeping edition
Just a quick hit...
Spent some time on Saturday talking to Ted McLaughlin, a blogger and friend from Texas. I was doing some research into a possible piece. It didn't work out for that piece, but it was great to talk to someone whose blog I've read for years.
Oh, and he's from a state where the politics and politicians are as crazy as they are in Arizona (though I think we've got Texas beat on a "crazy per capita" basis :) ), It's kind of hard to explain the politics here (and in TX) to someone who hasn't experienced them directly. People in other parts of the country hear about the "high points" (SB1070, Russell Pearce, Rick Perry) but have no clue what life out here is like on a day-to-day basis.
Anyway, while the conversation was easy - even though we had never actually spoken directly before, we didn't have to explain a lot to each other - the story I was going for just wasn't there. Hey, it happens.
However, the conversation was far from a total loss. I learned a couple of things.
1. Ted is as big a fan of the writing of the late Molly Ivins as I am. (Good taste, Ted!) Ivins blended humor, facts, and bluntness into a mix that tickled her readers' funny bones while stoking their outrage at injustice. Her voice is missed.
2. Per his recommendation, I checked out the Texas blog Juanita Jean's | The World's Most Dangerous Beauty Salon, Inc. It's Texas-centered, but not exclusively so, and most importantly, when he said that Juanita Jean's was the closest thing to Molly that could be found, he was right. The site has been added to the blogroll at the right, and I recommend checking it out.
Later...
Spent some time on Saturday talking to Ted McLaughlin, a blogger and friend from Texas. I was doing some research into a possible piece. It didn't work out for that piece, but it was great to talk to someone whose blog I've read for years.
Oh, and he's from a state where the politics and politicians are as crazy as they are in Arizona (though I think we've got Texas beat on a "crazy per capita" basis :) ), It's kind of hard to explain the politics here (and in TX) to someone who hasn't experienced them directly. People in other parts of the country hear about the "high points" (SB1070, Russell Pearce, Rick Perry) but have no clue what life out here is like on a day-to-day basis.
Anyway, while the conversation was easy - even though we had never actually spoken directly before, we didn't have to explain a lot to each other - the story I was going for just wasn't there. Hey, it happens.
However, the conversation was far from a total loss. I learned a couple of things.
1. Ted is as big a fan of the writing of the late Molly Ivins as I am. (Good taste, Ted!) Ivins blended humor, facts, and bluntness into a mix that tickled her readers' funny bones while stoking their outrage at injustice. Her voice is missed.
2. Per his recommendation, I checked out the Texas blog Juanita Jean's | The World's Most Dangerous Beauty Salon, Inc. It's Texas-centered, but not exclusively so, and most importantly, when he said that Juanita Jean's was the closest thing to Molly that could be found, he was right. The site has been added to the blogroll at the right, and I recommend checking it out.
Later...
Saturday, November 19, 2011
A study in contrasts: Reaction to this week's court ruling reinstating Colleen Mathis to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
This week's order handed down by the Arizona Supreme Court has elicited reactions from various quarters, that while not entirely unexpected, are stark in their differences.
The AIRC itself greeted the decision with professionalism, as evidenced by their promise to get back to work (press release posted by Steve at Arizona Eagletarian).
The Arizona Democratic Party greeted the decision with cautious satisfaction.
Governor Jan Brewer took a somewhat different tack (as expected), condemning the decision while ascribing to the court and its decision the contempt for the people of Arizona that she and her cronies in the legislature showed in their attempt to hijack the independent redistricting process.
Prime bits of hypocrisy -
Brewer, however, was actually understated compared to Rep. Andy Tobin, the Speaker of the Arizona House. He called Mathis the "czar" of the AIRC, accused the the AIRC of "ignoring voter mandates", and called the AIRC's work examples of "gerrymandering."
I'd make a crack about Tobin and his caucus being experts on "ignoring voter mandates", but I used that line in the last paragraph. So how about the definition of "gerrymander," from Merriam-Webster?
Of course, as bad as Tobin was, *he* is understated compared to some of his "base", rank and file members of the Republican caucus of the lege.
Rep. Terri Proud (from after the court handed down its order) -
Sen. Al Melvin (from a day before the court handed down its order) -
I'm not sure who is more scarily ignorant -
Proud for arguing that the constitution is unconstitutional (I think that she means that she believes the state constitution violates the US Constitution; since Arizona was already a "preclearance" state when Prop 106 passed, we'd have already heard from the DOJ if there was a problem with it) and that the "Founding Fathers" didn't intend for the people of the country to direct how their elected representatives are elected, or Melvin for openly advocating that an election to amend the AZ Constitution should be held when only Republican voters will be voting.
And given that his proposed subject matter is one which would affect all elections in Arizona, the US Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division would probably take a rather dim view of the whole affair.
In spite of her ignorance, Proud may have inadvertently told the bald truth about independent redistricting and the motivation for the power grab by Jan and her clan -
Howard Fischer ofthe governor's PR staff Capitol Media Services has coverage of a possible special session of the legislature this coming week to re-fire Mathis and other redistricting-related matters here (via the East Valley Tribune).
I'm not sure they'll be able to pull off a short-notice special session during a holiday-shortened week, but they are pulling out all the stops in their increasingly desperate efforts to override the will of the voters and seize control of the redistricting process. At this point, anything is possible.
The AIRC itself greeted the decision with professionalism, as evidenced by their promise to get back to work (press release posted by Steve at Arizona Eagletarian).
The Arizona Democratic Party greeted the decision with cautious satisfaction.
Governor Jan Brewer took a somewhat different tack (as expected), condemning the decision while ascribing to the court and its decision the contempt for the people of Arizona that she and her cronies in the legislature showed in their attempt to hijack the independent redistricting process.
Prime bits of hypocrisy -
"Let’s not forget why we’re here: The IRC followed an unconstitutional redistricting process, conducting too much of its business behind closed doors and disregarding mapping criteria seemingly at will. They did all of this without explanation."Ummm...when was the last time that the state budget was actually created in public and not cobbled together behind closed doors, and rammed through the legislature on a day's notice? Of course, if anyone knows what it means to "twist the words and spirit of the Constitution", it's Jan and her clan.
{snip}
"With its reinstatement of the IRC Chairwoman, the Supreme Court has averted its eyes from the Commission’s misdeeds. The Chairwoman’s actions to meet in secret, arrange critical votes in advance of meetings and twist the words and spirit of the Constitution have been forgiven – if not endorsed outright."
Brewer, however, was actually understated compared to Rep. Andy Tobin, the Speaker of the Arizona House. He called Mathis the "czar" of the AIRC, accused the the AIRC of "ignoring voter mandates", and called the AIRC's work examples of "gerrymandering."
I'd make a crack about Tobin and his caucus being experts on "ignoring voter mandates", but I used that line in the last paragraph. So how about the definition of "gerrymander," from Merriam-Webster?
1: to divide (a territorial unit) into election districts to give one political party an electoral majority in a large number of districts while concentrating the voting strength of the opposition in as few districts as possible"Competitive" districts, something that Democrats and Independent voters in Arizona want (a desire expressed and enacted in 2000, when voters created the independent redistricting process), are exactly the opposite of "gerrymandered."
2: to divide (an area) into political units to give special advantages to one group
Of course, as bad as Tobin was, *he* is understated compared to some of his "base", rank and file members of the Republican caucus of the lege.
Rep. Terri Proud (from after the court handed down its order) -
Sen. Al Melvin (from a day before the court handed down its order) -
I'm not sure who is more scarily ignorant -
Proud for arguing that the constitution is unconstitutional (I think that she means that she believes the state constitution violates the US Constitution; since Arizona was already a "preclearance" state when Prop 106 passed, we'd have already heard from the DOJ if there was a problem with it) and that the "Founding Fathers" didn't intend for the people of the country to direct how their elected representatives are elected, or Melvin for openly advocating that an election to amend the AZ Constitution should be held when only Republican voters will be voting.
And given that his proposed subject matter is one which would affect all elections in Arizona, the US Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division would probably take a rather dim view of the whole affair.
In spite of her ignorance, Proud may have inadvertently told the bald truth about independent redistricting and the motivation for the power grab by Jan and her clan -
"It hasn't worked and it won't work for the Republicans. Not ONE state has stayed Republic with an alternative. Not ONE."Hope she is being prophetic...
Howard Fischer of
I'm not sure they'll be able to pull off a short-notice special session during a holiday-shortened week, but they are pulling out all the stops in their increasingly desperate efforts to override the will of the voters and seize control of the redistricting process. At this point, anything is possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)