tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-160490452024-03-12T18:46:07.718-07:00Goldwater StateA classical-liberal take on Arizona policy and politics.B. Kalafuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678386134174713187noreply@blogger.comBlogger407125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16049045.post-8442447045509383252012-11-06T02:01:00.004-07:002012-11-06T15:02:56.884-07:00Jeff Flake or Marc Victor?I was a member of the Libertarian Party for about 13 years, active for about 10 of those. This 'blog began as a side project while I was still writing copy (and paid far too little for it--usually $0) for LP candidates and the local Party. If you want to know why to vote for third-party candidates, I'm the man to tell you. Vote not for this year but for ten years from now--vote to help to build the party. Vote to signal to the major-party candidates that they need to do more to earn your vote.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That's all very nice, and if you think that the Libertarian Party has potential to overcome its internal culture and history and become a force for positive change in Arizona, take my old advice.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But please, please, please, don't vote for Marc Victor. And think very hard before casting a vote for Gary Johnson.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
It's nothing personal. Gary Johnson is the best Presidential candidate from any party since Reagan. And Victor, who I never met, is by most accounts--from LP types and from ACLU lawyers--a genuinely genial person, a good defense lawyer, and a good man. He's not qualified for the Senate. The LP doesn't have many candidates to draw from ;the only Arizona LP regular who has the kind of public policy or high-level business experience that would qualify him is former Congressional economist <a href="http://www.joecobb.com/">Joe Cobb</a>. <br />
<br />
Joe Cobb, by the way, is running for Congress in the 4th District against Ed Pastor. I cannot endorse anyone more strongly for Congress than I can endorse Joe Cobb. He is the rare challenger with prior experience in shaping Federal policy and drafting legislation. On a more personal level, he's a man of unimpeachable character and tremendous warmth. We need both in Washington.<br />
<br />
Of the qualified potential recruits for Senate candidate from outside the Libertarian Party, Sam Steiger retired a decade ago and is now deceased (!), and "independent" libertarian-leaning former Democrat Ted Downing seems to have backed out of politics following his defeat by cookie-cutter leftist Paula Aboud in 2010. The LP needs to fill the ballot line, otherwise a <a href="http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/article_fce1f4da-531c-5987-b702-decf5052fd61.html?mode=print">Yuri Downing</a>-like joker or worse, a lunatic bigot like Russ Dove or Roy Warden might run and permanently embarrass the organization. Since parties cannot legally control their ballot lines in AZ, unqualified candidates are better than none at all, and unqualified candidates with the dignity of Marc Victor--a great improvement over the 2000, 2004, and 2006 candidates--are better still.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Victor does have a strike against him. It isn't mentioned on his campaign website, but it's no secret, either: <a href="http://www.attorneyforfreedom.com/index.cfm/g/articles-by-marc-victor/f/my-contribution-to-science.htm">for a few days, Marc Victor was a Superior Court judge</a> <i>pro tempore</i>. For reasons of "principle"--the word Libertarians use when saying "it's my opinion" isn't enough--he recused himself from all drug cases on his calendar, and was fired from the job. If an anarchist like Randy Barnett could be a prosecutor, Victor could probably have found a way to be a judge and keep a clean conscience. (And if he couldn't, he should not have applied for the position in the first place.) He may not actually serve as Senator were he elected Senator. He may decide to collaborate with nobody, "on principle", and never to compromise. I do not vote for people who will not meet the duties of their office. But that's no reason for people who cast protest votes to not vote for Victor.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The real reason is that Jeff Flake is a very libertarian Republican--until Justin Amash came along, easily the most libertarian member of Congress--making Victor the irrelevant alternative. His primary-season reversal on immigration was a genuine disappointment to me and other longtime supporters. The typical Arizona Republican stance, "border security first, then reform" is inhumane and idiotic. (Why spend billions enforcing a bad and difficult-to-enforce policy before adopting something better and easier to enforce?) But the number one rule in politics is that to do good, you must actually be in office. A reformer like Flake has to fight both the Democrats and his own party. During his time in Congress he's fought the good fight on government reform, on civil liberties, on the budget. It's easy to demand perfect agreement as someone who doesn't work to advance an agenda in a legislature, easier still as a member of a political party with no intent to actually elect someone to Federal office in the near future. For working policymakers, prioritization is necessary. Cut him some slack.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The race with Carmona is far too close. If you're thinking of voting for Victor, ask yourself if your policy agenda is best served by electing a run-of-the-mill big-government Democrat to the Senate or by electing a Republican who was for small government and comprehensive reform before the Tea Party made it cool to be fore small government and comprehensive reform. Given what's at stake, ask yourself whether you want another Democrat in the Senate at all. Democrats are committed to blocking meaningful health care reform and for ideological reasons won't join the conversation on, let alone debate House bills proposing to, reform Federal spending. They'll balance the budget by raising already usurious tax rates, but cutting the scope of the Federal government is off the table. And sending another Democrat to the Senate will make it difficult to block Obama judicial nominees hostile to freedom of the press or the right to keep and bear arms. If Democrats attain a supermajority, use one hand to defend your civil liberties and keep another on your wallet. Flake has consistently defended both.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Consider also that Carmona recently released an advertisement <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2012/10/29/20121029editorial1030-democrat-might-like-do-over.html">faking endorsements</a> from John McCain and Jon Kyl. Even in the election season that brought us the fake "war on women" and Mitt Romney the evil "vulture capitalist" scamster, fake endorsements are too bold a lie. Carmona is not of good moral character. And a vote for Victor will help send Carmona to the senate.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Regarding Gary Johnson: He'd make a great president. Vote for him with pride. Unless you live in a swing state. The stakes are far too high. President Obama will block market-oriented health-care reforms. He's refused to "play ball" on the budget. And he may get to nominate two Supreme Court justices in his second term. Picture <i>Citizens United</i>, <i>McDonnell vs Chicago</i>, or <i>Ricci vs DeStefano</i> (the firefighters' discrimination case) going the other way. And then vote Romney in Arizona unless the polls show a clear Romney victory. And then support adoption of Condorcet voting in Arizona, so you never have to make that kind of choice again.</div>
B. Kalafuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678386134174713187noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16049045.post-63395740699912993772012-11-05T23:12:00.001-07:002012-11-05T23:14:16.066-07:00Pardon the dust."Pardon our dust as we update for the '90s."
I wonder whether that sign is still in the El Con mall.
<br />
<br />
Haloscan ended its 'blog commenting service. Comments and trackbacks from mid 2008-present are currently inaccessible. I will try to import them. Disqus is the site's new commenting platform.<br />
<br />
This doesn't matter too much, since following my departure from the Goldwater State this space is now maintained largely as an archive.
If you want to change that, just drop me a note. If you count yourself in the "free minds and free markets" set--if you like what you read here--don't follow any peculiar political doctrine or ideology, and have something to say about politics and policy in Arizona, you're welcome to give it a try.B. Kalafuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678386134174713187noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16049045.post-67891401273072664842011-01-15T16:27:00.004-07:002011-01-15T18:07:42.735-07:00An incomplete roundup, one week later.David Fitzsimmons (<i>Arizona Daily Star</i> cartoonist "Fitz") <a href="http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/editorial/article_8e722703-47ef-529f-95da-be8c3511ed5e.html">apologized for his slanderous on-air rant</a>. Clarence Dupnik remains strident. The <i>Republic</i> hit him hard in its <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2011/01/11/20110111tue1-11.html">Monday editorial</a>, calling for him to remember his duty as a peace officer. The <i>Washington Times</i>'s Robert Knight <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/14/recall-sheriff-dupnik/">recommends a recall election</a>, which, despite Dupnik's sensible stand on SB 1070, would be a great idea for many reasons of which his recent unprofessional conduct is but one.<br /><br />Dave Hardy <a href="http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2011/01/rest_in_peace_j.php">fondly remembers Judge Roll</a> as fair-minded and respectful of the law.<br /><br />Most of Gabrielle Giffords's political opponents from recent years have released statements of good will. <a href="http://puzzele.com/stevestoltz/myprayers.htm">Steve Stoltz's civic-minded reflection</a> is the standout in that number--I could never get in to his politics, but what a class act! Randy Graf is conspicuously absent from this group. Although I consider bigots an infinitesimal epsilon away from human trash, I'm not going to read any meaning in to his silence. Perhaps it's better that we <i>don't</i> hear from him.<br /><br />At about the same level: writers are straining to claim that Joseph Zamudio--one of the men who subdued Jared Loughner--carrying a firearm presented a danger to others. I'm not going to even link such nonsense here, and will just note that it's contradictory to write of Zamudio's finger being on the trigger in one sentence and then in another that he kept it holstered. The Wall Street Journal's <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703779704576073921275131528.html?mod=googlenews_wsj">features story on Zamudio</a> gets it right.<br /><br />In addition to the misguided calls to lock up the insane, we're starting to see more discussion of civil outpatient commitment. <a href="http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=%22kendra%27s+law%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=%22kendra%27s+law%22&hl=en&safe=off&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=blg:1,sbd:1,nws:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=bn&fp=c865adc68dda343e">Google "Kendra's Law"</a>. It is working in New York and similar policies have been effective in a handful of other states, with civil liberties infringement approaching zero. (The ACLU's gripe is ethnic disparity, reflecting that group's recent deviation away from its core mission.) We should consider enacting such a policy here in Arizona.B. Kalafuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678386134174713187noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16049045.post-29793057434837345032011-01-12T19:30:00.001-07:002011-01-12T19:30:00.811-07:00A practical difference between George Bush and Barack ObamaPresident Obama was (rightly) criticized in the first two years of his term for a dictatorial tone, for example claiming to phone BP and tell them what to do instead of letting that be handled through normal legal processes.<br /><br />But in at least one respect he is less dictatorial than his predecessor. When George Bush came to Tucson for a <a href="http://goldwaterstate.blogspot.com/2008/07/call-bee-campaign-ask-for-compensation.html">2008 fundraiser for Tim Bee</a>, police--working overtime on the taxpayer dime--closed the entire length of Swan for at least four hours, from Davis Monthan AFB all the way to Sunrise. Without warning Tucson was split into two halves; people had to take detours of 15 miles or more to get from the west side to the east side, just to give George Bush a grand entrance. Hundreds were late to work or to get home to their children. Private driveways and business road cuts were also blocked along the entire route.<br /><br />It's unclear to this day which of Bee or Bush was responsible for such waste and such gross inconveniencing of the common man. No President before or since has, to my knowledge, engaged in such a practice; clearing a path and restricting the movement of the plebs is better suited to a banana-republic caudillo. However banana-republican he has been at times, Barack Obama didn't have any roads shut down <strike>today</strike> yesterday. [BSK: post rescheduled.]<br /><br />And Bee never did reimburse the public treasury or the many he inconvenience. He did, however, end up the victim of some <a href="http://goldwaterstate.blogspot.com/2008/08/friday-morning-phone-call.html">great real-life trolling</a>.B. Kalafuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678386134174713187noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16049045.post-48780524808764710152011-01-12T19:14:00.002-07:002011-01-12T19:29:48.289-07:00President Obama rose above his party tonight.Barack Obama is now on the same list as Steve Stoltz and Rodney Glassman: those whose responses to Saturday's spree shooting epitomizes republican civility.<br /><br />"What we cannot do is use this tragedy as another occasion to turn on each other...[as we discuss this] let each of us do so with a good dose of humility."<br /><br />And now a direct rejection of the thesis that rhetoric caused the spree shooting, without subsequently backhandedly insinuating that it did: a <i>civil</i> case for civility.<br /><br />Addendum (BSK re: Obama): If we want our "democracy" to live up to childrens' expectations, then consensual governance is in order. Governing with the consent of the governed. Not "scoring touchdowns" with extreme and ill-wrought bills of large scope, not "elections have consequences", not democracy, not majoritarianism, and certainly not the blood-and-soil nationalism we have seen in Arizona.<br /><br />Addendum 2 (BSK re: the UA choir): There is no more American song than the Shaker Hymn. When I hear just the melody in <i>Appalachian Spring</i> it makes the hair on my neck stand up and sometimes brings a tear to my eye. A most appropriate choice for today for a number of reasons.B. Kalafuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678386134174713187noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16049045.post-52672994387762958232011-01-12T18:03:00.002-07:002011-01-12T18:05:51.824-07:00Live video feed link: Obama's addressThe link to live coverage of tonight's memorial address is buried on the Arizona Public Media website. For those who are having trouble finding it, it is: <a href="http://ondemand.azpm.org/live/">http://ondemand.azpm.org/live/</a>. All you have missed so far (at the time of posting) is half of a performance of Aaron Copland's <i>Fanfare for the Common Man</i>.B. Kalafuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678386134174713187noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16049045.post-84825233162022231762011-01-12T16:02:00.003-07:002011-01-12T16:32:29.173-07:00A half-mile queue for President Obama's speech<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_dE_hPItkEtw/TS4zNZoHtsI/AAAAAAAAACc/i0lLVwHhfIw/s1600/DSC00005.JPG"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 150px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_dE_hPItkEtw/TS4zNZoHtsI/AAAAAAAAACc/i0lLVwHhfIw/s200/DSC00005.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5561438895159621314"/> </a><br />At 3:50 PM the queue to see President Obama's 6 PM address (honoring those wounded or killed in Saturday's spree shooting) in the McCale Center at the University of Arizona extended past the Physics and Gould-Simpson buildings, nearly half a mile away.<br /><br />The McCale Center is said to hold 14,000; overflow will be directed to Arizona Stadium where the speech will be played on the giant scoreboard televisions. (Do they still call them JumboTrons?) <a href="http://uanews.org/node/36904">UA News</a> says that all attendees will go through "airport-like" security. If that includes taking off shoes or copping a feel, they won't even fill McCale between 4 PM and the start of the address.<br /><br />As for me, I'll either watch the address on <a href="http://www.azpm.org/">Arizona Public Media</a>'s live feed or read a transcript afterwards. Many reports claim that President Obama will avoid politics tonight and some claim that he will speak about tolerance. Given the extent to which David Fitzsimmons, the Huffington Post, Clarence Dupnik, and numerous others have poisoned the discourse it will be difficult to talk about tolerance tonight without being political and without appearing that he is joining in or approves of the slanderous fantasies we heard too much of on Saturday and Sunday. The question would almost ask itself: If rhetoric or "vitriol" or whatever you want to call it did not motivate the spree shooting, then why are you bringing it up? <br /><br />David Harsanyi <a href="http://reason.com/archives/2011/01/12/this-conversation-is-a-set-up">notes the chilling implications of a dialogue about 'civility'</a>, especially one in which it is claimed that "anti-government" classical-liberal rhetoric is dangerous. That should hit home with many of the readers of this 'blog.<br /><br />And on an only tangentially-related note, if you're at the speech and looking for a bite to eat either before or after the event, most of the places I <a href="http://www.examiner.com/restaurant-in-tucson/the-top-5-places-for-lunch-near-the-university-of-arizona">recommended for lunch</a> should be open. Mr. Antojo's makes some of the best carne asade tacos in town, as long as you have them hold the guacamole. Among places not on that list, try Wilko or Vila Thai (all near Park and University) for slightly upscale dining, Zachary's (6th and Fremont) for reliable if not great deep-dish pizzas, Rosati's (6th and Campbell) for a Chicago-style square-cut thin crust pizza as good as any from Chicago, and 1702 (1702 E. Speedway, about a block and a half west of Campbell and Speedway) for high-quality out-sized thin slices and one of the best beer selections west of the Mississippi.B. Kalafuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678386134174713187noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16049045.post-64865061406421126682011-01-08T18:34:00.003-07:002011-01-08T19:07:24.311-07:00There is no room for politicizing today's spree shooting.Before any information whatsoever was available about Jared Loughner, the man who shot Gabrielle Giffords, Judge John Roll, and 17 other people today in front of the Safeway supermarket near Ina and Oracle in Tucson, many were attempting to blame Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Jesse Kelly. Apparently, Kelly held a campaign event at a shooting range (horror of horrors). Palin's PAC put Giffords in crosshairs as part of what appears to have been a hunting-themed direct mailing.<br /><br />It doesn't seem likely that a hypothetical Loughner has been plotting, plotting, plotting since receiving Palin's mailing months ago. Indeed the idea sounds laughable. And that's without knowing anything about Loughner.<br /><br />Loughner's Myspace page and Youtube videos show many signs of mental illness, including a bizarre writing style, paranoia about mind control, inventing one's own currency and own language to escape mind control, and talk of "conscience dreaming" (whatever that means) and sleepwalking to escape mind control. In short, he appears to be a regular nut not an angry political assassin deciding it's time to "go to the cartridge box" all by himself.<br /><br />FM 104.1 here in Tucson was relaying KGUN 9's coverage of (Sheriff) Clarence Dupnik's press conference. Repeatedly, Sheriff Dupnik, instead of focusing on the matter at hand, blamed "vitriol" in the popular press. This despite him acknowledging, without naming Loughner's name, seeing "all 7 minutes" of Loughner's Youtube videos. Near the end of the conference a reporter I could not identify pinned him down on this: was there any evidence that Loughner was inspired by such "vitriol" or had any political motive. The answer, none at all. Maybe Dupnik means "liar" or "crass jackass" in some language. Our Congresswoman--who he called a friend--was shot, and he was <i>in spite of the facts</i> using that in an attempt to score political points against the Right.<br /><br />We all know that the staff of the Huffington Post, which appears to have been the first to attempt to politicize today's spree shooting by blaming Republican talking heads and Sara Palin, have no shame. I found out today that some of my friends--one of whom (a foreigner, so perhaps she has an excuse) even suggested the abridgement of Beck and Palin's right to free speech--don't have much either, or that they do not understand the limits of decency. (Shall we blame Noam Chomsky and other market abolitionists on the Left for every home invasion, mugging, or property crime?) To blame the political right for today's spree shooting was bad enough. To do so before any information about the killer was available was simply shameful. It's a form of lying, to claim something about motives when he could just as easily been a leftist or have done it "to impress Jodie Foster". I would be ashamed and those who participated in such wild speculation, such lying to score political points owe everyone an apology.<br /><br />Kudos, by the way, to Rodney Glassman for telling Democrats to stop pointing fingers until they have the facts.B. Kalafuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678386134174713187noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16049045.post-10800503851148431132011-01-08T13:21:00.005-07:002011-01-08T14:21:02.074-07:00On the shooting of Gabrielle GiffordsUPDATE: <a href="http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archives/2011/01/08/congresswoman-gabrielle-giffords-shot-this-morning">The latest news</a> has Giffords alive and responsive. No word on the extent of her incapacitation.<br /><br />Conflicting reports have (8th district Congresswoman) Gabrielle Giffords either dead or undergoing surgery, after being shot in the head at close range at a constituent outreach event at the Safeway near Ina and Oracle this morning. Twelve others were shot. The shooter is in police custody following a citizen's arrest made as he was attempting to escape.<br /><br />Right now the news is too patchy to say much. Presumably Giffords is permanently incapacitated; just the shock wave produced by a 9mm or 0.38 caliber round at close range can cause severe brain injury. There are more questions than answers right now: why was the shooter able to fire so many rounds before he was stopped? Why was Giffords's staff not carrying? And who was the shooter?<br /><hr><br />Already the Left is attempting to blame Sarah Palin for this, as though using a hunting metaphor months ago on a PAC campaign graphic is incitement to murder today. That's ridiculous. We do not know who the shooter is at the moment--a man in his '20s is all the press is telling us--or what his motives were. It could just as easily be a left-wing extremist--Tucson has plenty--as it could be a right-wing extremist; Giffords against the Democrats about 40% of the time, and was one of only a small handful to vote against reelecting Nancy Pelosi to the position of Speaker of the House. The more extreme are calling for abridgement of freedom of the press and freedom of speech--"lock up Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin." Such talk is beyond the bounds of decency in our republic. With two narrow and well-thought exceptions--incitement and libel--we hold communication to be the remedy for communication and do not hold the authors of whatever assassins and other criminals are reading as somehow co-responsible for their crimes. <br /><br />Surely today's events will give illiberal nutcases like Paul Helmke an undeserved boost of attention, if only because the rights they attempting to abridge were more recently won than those protected by the 1st Amendment. It's going to be a hard fight but the facts are on the side of liberty, unless the balancing of values very heavily favors the safety of public figures against rare events over the quotidian safety of ordinary people. Even then we must remember that John Hinkley, Sirhan Sirhan, and so many others acted before concealed carry was made legal. Readers may consider it heresy for me to say so, but now that we've won--now that (except in IL, NY, WI, and CA...) the existential threat to the right to self-defense is over--it is time, if not past time, for advocates of RKBA to contribute constructively to the discussion of how to better keep firearms out of the hands of lunatics and mental defectives. Agreeing to mandatory legal training and more thorough screening--with due process, of course--in exchange for the opponents to our right to self defense permanently standing down is a win-win bargain. And perhaps better screening would have prevented today's assassination. We do not know. As for who is to blame for lax screening, that is shared. The "anti-"s created a climate of fear that made what would otherwise be reasonable rules look like preludes to all-out abridgement of rights, and the "pro-"s for very long took an "in whatever manner pleases me" position that makes sense for law-abiding folk but doesn't make sense in an imperfect world.<br /><hr><br />The news is not clear but what is clear is the past. We were all disappointed in her vote on the "health care reform" bill that banned actuarially fair insurance and imposed a heavy transaction reporting burden on small business. But looking beyond that Giffords was no party-line voter and no ideologue. A supporter of the right to keep and bear arms, a believer in the "no exceptions" position on freedom of the press and freedom of speech, and also someone who understood, as a small businesswoman, that civil society, not government, gives prosperity, in the good sense of the word she had a liberal streak sadly lacking in today's Democratic Party. And in an era when too many Congressmen govern from Washington--which often is to Arizona what Rome must have been to Pontius Pilate's Judea--Giffords frequently met with her constituents without pre-screening their opinions or otherwise making the meeting "just for show". Altogether she was a fine match for Jim Kolbe's old 8th District and far closer to her predecessor in position and temperament than Jesse Kelly or Randy Graf, something most Republicans around here never did come to understand.<br /><br />The worst criticism to be leveled at her: failure to show any leadership in a Democratic Party that made a knight's move, hard to the Left and backwards 25 years, between 2001 and 2005. Following a Friday interview The Sierra Vista Herald's Bill Hess <a href="http://www.svherald.com/content/news/2011/01/08/giffords-expects-some-cooperation-between-parties">reported</a> what amount to signs of Gabby Giffords starting to take the lead as an advocate of fiscal restraint.<br /><br />Then some jackass shot her. What was that supposed to accomplish?B. Kalafuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678386134174713187noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16049045.post-75486645640199826262011-01-05T14:07:00.005-07:002011-01-05T16:35:41.310-07:00A few comments on the Democratic party and Andrei Cherny's pursuit of its chairmanship<div class='posterous_autopost'><p><img src="http://posterous.com/getfile/files.posterous.com/temp-2011-01-05/srIsjuddbzpjHxskHEqthieGDdFjprwbxgjIhsecnorsjkscxbbtxeqciqCI/ChernyForTreasurer_phixr.png.scaled500.png" width="320" height="240"/> </p><p>Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that Cherny is pursuing the position of chairman of the Arizona Democratic party. He apparently thinks that he has a secret supply of mojo that he can add to the water supply in Arizona that will counteract the bitterness that many Arizona voters taste when presented with the option of voting for Democratic party candidates.</p><p>His 2010 campaign for state treasurer pivoted on the idea that voters should vote for the "New" Democrat who is not the same as the old Democrat. That <a href="http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/AZ/22333/40707/en/md_data.html?cid=340&">proposition was an electoral loser</a> when the rubber hit the road.</p><p>Doug Ducey won after a season full of polished and aggressive attacks by Cherny because he used the shield of "prudent banker" over and over again. Cherny lost because he said he was going to expand the duties and responsibilities of the Treasurer and add an extra variable to Arizona government investing. The voters he needed to persuade weren't buying what Cherny had to sell.</p><p>Many Democrats currently believe that they can sell voters another iteration of the "New" Democrat paint job on their old Democrat jalopy. That isn't going to work in 2012. Some will try but one need only look at the bones of the Coffee party or election day 2010 to see how well that idea took off.</p><p>Cherny (or Rodney Glassman or Don Bivens) needs to recognize the necessity of adding some new ideas to the Democratic party's inbred and increasingly infirm ideological gene pool. I'll offer a suggestion to Cherny and any other Democrats who wants to win in 2012. Call the Goldwater Institute and make an appointment with their staff to discuss <a href="http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article/5435">how many of the 100 ideas in 100 days</a> (from Goldwater Institute) they can embrace. </p><p>On the federal level there are a few positions out there that would motivate voters to vote in favor of team Blue. So far in Arizona's congressional delegation only Raúl Grijalva has adopted the twin winner ideas of <a href="http://freesoil.posterous.com/free-soil-party-platform">get the US out of Iraq/Afghanistan and audit the Fed</a>. I am not sure that Ed Pastor and Gabriel Giffords are willing to endorse the idea of ending these overseas occupations but it is indeed possible that the next wave of challenger candidates will.</p><p>It is going to take some game changing positions to lure voters into considering voting Democratic in 2012.</p><p>[I posted another version of <a href="http://cpmazrandommusings.blogspot.com/2011/01/andrei-cherny-why-im-running-for.html">this article on another blog</a> but the owner there apparently thinks that sticking one's fingers in his ears while yelling "No Labels will redeem our rejected ideas!" is going to do the trick when it comes to winning elections in 2012.]</p><p> </p><p>Photo credit: <a href="http://www.espressopundit.com/2010/09/covering-his-ass.html">EspressoPundit</a></p></div>Thane Eichenauerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12848580360960232789noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16049045.post-71658336021304261082010-12-15T23:39:00.002-07:002010-12-15T23:44:05.954-07:00So David Duke walks into an NAACP meeting...I have it on good word (I did not attend this year) that Russell Pearce showed up at Al Korwin's annual Bill of Rights Day event.<br /><br />This is the legislator who, in his quest to institutionalize bigotry (that's fair to say because he sure isn't supporting visa reform and amnesty), introduces bill after bill that disregards the Fourth Amendment.<br /><br />The DSM uses the term "lack of insight" for a necessary criterion for the diagnosis of many psychopathologies: the patient must be unaware that certain cognitions or perceptions are not normal. I think the term "lack of insight" applies here, too. That is, unless he came to beg forgiveness, and there's no rumor of that.B. Kalafuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678386134174713187noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16049045.post-51689986731672508252010-11-21T18:09:00.002-07:002010-11-21T18:19:28.780-07:00David F. Nolan, RIPI just received word from two mutual friends that David F. Nolan (known to many as either "Dave" or "The Nolan") passed away suddenly last night, two days shy of his 67th birthday.<br /><br />An Arizonan since 2005, most recently Nolan was the at the top of the Arizona Libertarian Party's ticket, running a respectable and visible 3rd-party candidacy for the U.S. Senate. He was the principal founder of the Libertarian Party and also known for proposing what came to be known as the "Nolan Chart", one of several two-dimensional descriptors of political belief or tendency.<br /><br />My sincerest condolences go to his wife Elizabeth.<br /><br />I will follow up with information about the memorial service and where to send donations in lieu of flowers.B. Kalafuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678386134174713187noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16049045.post-32091830497445205742010-11-12T15:23:00.003-07:002010-11-12T16:24:52.190-07:00Trash and tradeoffs: or the feral Tea Partier of Fountain HillsOnce again a post certain to annoy or offend some of the readers. But if you wanted someone to stroke your prejudices, you'd be reading Blog for Arizona, Sonoran Alliance, or whatever Ernie Hancock is promoting these days.<br /><br />Arizona policy has <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/08/trash-tea-party-fountain-hills-arizona-_n_780345.html">once again caught national attention</a>, and not because Russell Pearce--the man more responsible for getting Arizona thought of as the new capitol of bigotry than any other-- was elected to preside over the state Senate. No, it is because the "Tea Party", formerly reserving its vaguely paleoconservative populism for Federal and State concerns, has taken a stand on a local matter.<br /><br />As <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/2010/11/05/20101105fountain-hills-one-trash-hauler.html">reported in the Arizona Republic</a>, on Thursday 4 November the Fountain Hills town council voted to amend the town code to allow selection of a single trash hauler. Previously, individual residents contracted individually with one of several haulers. Now all will receive weekly trash pickup services plus curbside recycling for $11.44 per month.<br /><br />The local Tea Party group announced a 16 November "town hall meeting"--despite nearly 5 hours of public comment at the meeting at which the vote--announcing it as follows on their(amusingly Geocities-esque) website:<br /><blockquote>"Talkin' Trash"<br /><br />On Thursday, November 4 the Fountain Hills Town Council decided, by a 4-3 vote, to take away your ability to choose your own trash hauler. <br /><br />Councilmembers Brown, Dickey, and Leger, along with Mayor Schlum, voted for this action. Councilmembers Contino, Elkie, and Hansen voted to preserve your freedom.<br /><br />Once more, government is trying to interfere with free market economics. <br /><br />Our goal: let the people decide!</blockquote><br /><br />What the Tea Partiers are not discussing is price. I made a few phone calls to get a sense of what the <a href="http://www.fountainhillsguide.com/serv_trash.html">private haulers</a> charge. Waste Management service costs $19.50 per month plus a few dollars extra for fuel and environmental (dump) fees. Allied Waste (formerly Red Mountain) charges $55 every three months, which works out to $18.34. Due likely to economies of scale, Fountain Hills's new service will save residents $7 per month.<br /><br />And those savings do not take into account the externalities. The Arizona Republic reports claims of a savings of nearly $100,000/year in street maintenance. In addition to that, there'll be less air pollution--start-and-stop driving of high-torque diesel engines like those in garbage trucks is very dirty--and less early morning vibration and noise.<br /><br />The loss to the individual? Nothing. As long as it's equally clean and equally quiet trash pickup is trash pickup. Unless we somehow price into things the mental anguish a right-winger or right-wing "libertarian" must feel, given the reaction, when forced to re-evaluate very simple heuristics, everybody benefits and nobody loses. This looks like a clear example of one of those win-win transactions of which--pace Richard Epstein--coercion is an ethical and practical no-brainer. Worries about a "monopoly" are misplaced, as the area's various waste haulers can still compete when the contract is up for renewal.<br /><br />Waste hauling is not health care, nor is it health insurance. There's no third-party payments problem, no moral hazard problem (except in clever hypothetical scenaria) and no price:utility tradeoffs with extreme implication for quality of life or even life-and-death. One's life, livelihood, and liberty are at stake when a "single-payer" or "single-payer"-like plan (such as the one passed by the Democrats early this year, which forbids insurance companies from competing on product) drives up costs and then reins them in with rationing. They at best only trivially at stake when trash-hauling contracts are made at the municipal level, bringing savings, reduced externalities, and extra benefits such as recycling. "But I want pickup on Wednesday." "But I want the company with the pretty purple trucks." "But I want a more expensive service without recycling because recycling is only for non-jerks and I am a jerk."<br /><br />If I were a Tea Partier, and I'm not, I'd be wary of calling this "socialism" as people interviewed in the Republic--and commenting in the 'blogosphere--are doing. Socialism (euphemistically called "progressivism") and leftism more generally involves win-lose transactions, sacrificing some for the short-term benefit of others and the long-term detriment of all. Remember that poll that had 33% of Americans--who are these people--having a positive impression of "socialism"? Don't start associating "socialism" with common-sense, and still free-market, changes for the better.B. Kalafuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678386134174713187noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16049045.post-27619147828682195552010-11-02T02:06:00.003-07:002010-11-02T02:18:36.268-07:00On Propositions 301 and 302: No recommendation.Like <a href="http://goldwaterstate.blogspot.com/2010/10/no-recommendation-on-proposition-302.html">previously covered</a> Proposition 302, <a href="http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/Info/PubPamphlet/english/prop301.htm#301">Proposition 301</a> sweeps voter-allocated funds into the general fund for the purpose of balancing the budget. In this case, it is monies from the Land Conservation Fund, set aside as 11 years of $20MM appropriations (plus private donations) following 1998 approval of the "Growing Smarter Act" by the electorate. The remaining balance of the fund is to be swept into the General Fund.<br /><br />I know how I am going to vote on this one, and I'm less wishy-washy about it than I am about Prop. 302. Those of you who are in favor probably think I am against it and those of you against it probably think I am in favor. Like Proposition 302, deciding how to vote on this proposition involves balancing competing values. I do not think I can help the reader through that. I give no recommendation.B. Kalafuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678386134174713187noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16049045.post-75311545522885069492010-11-02T00:03:00.004-07:002010-11-02T02:08:04.759-07:00For decency's sake, vote "yes" on Prop. 203I've been more often than not surprised by just who I meet who would benefit from legalization of use and distribution of marijuana (cannabis, pot) for medicinal purposes. None have been hippies, slackers, or never-do-wells. I will not say that all patients everywhere are categorically model citizens, but the patients or would-be patients that I have met are moral and productive members of society.<br /><br />The most recent: a coworker, an elderly office clerk with a very conservative manner and the work habits to match, very cautiously sought my opinion on Proposition 203 and on learning that I have long been a supporter of legalization (for any use) shared that (from her experience) medical marijuana would be the best medicine for her PTSD, that she would take would even a petty conviction not imperil her husband's business. Legal marijuana would enable a good night's sleep without the side-effects of prescription pills.<br /><br />I didn't even know at the time that marijuana was therapeutic in PTSD. Surely enough, there is plenty of research to corroborate one patient's anecdotal evidence.<br /><br />I find that many of the opponents of legalization of medical marijuana are simply <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.77.6.1121">ignorant and arrogant</a>. A case that will forever stand out in my mind is that of an MD I knew as a teenager who called cancer patients' claims that medical marijuana would benefit them "nonsense". It turns out that this MD didn't bother to learn why the claims were being made and merely assumed that it was being argued that marijuana cures cancer. I do not know how I knew that marijuana was a potent anti-emetic, allowing chemotherapy patients to eat healthily instead of vomit uncontrollably, and an MD did not. But yes, a little hit of cheap, common marijuana smoke goes far in easing cancer patients' suffering and contributing to their health and recovery--and to suggest a THC pill would be stupid. Not only is THC not the only active constituent of marijuana, but people who are puking nonstop cannot take a pill!<br /><br />Add PTSD to the list of conditions for which marijuana is therapeutic, which isn't limited to uncontrolled emesis due to cancer therapy. Marijuana reduces retinal blood pressure in glaucoma patients (helping to save their sight), controls spasticity caused by primary progressive or late-stage relapsing-remitting MS (there's one that hits close to home for this 'blogger...) and many other conditions, and reduces tremors caused by Parkinson's and other neurogenic movement disorders. And we can laugh all we want at the "munchies" in healthy people, but in patients with HIV-related wasting disease and other wasting conditions it is a lifesaver.<br /><br />Opponents of medical marijuana legalization think it will send the wrong message to youths. What message is that? That our forbears who banned the stuff in a moral panic having something to do with miscegenation, <i>Reefer Madness</i>, and the Hearst family's interest in the pulp paper business made a mistake? That their DARE-participating schoolteachers and policemen lied to them? That for generations we've not only incarcerated people for eating or smoking something more mild than beer but locked up the ill for treating themselves? To <i>not</i> send this message is arrogance. We <i>owe the young</i> this message and a sincere apology.<br /><br />They gripe that teenagers smoke more marijuana in states where medical marijuana is legal and that marijuana will be more widely available? So what! If keeping kids and adults from getting a mild buzz that generations of experience has shown us is at its worst a very mild social problem--more mild than alcohol overindulgence or tobacco smoking--really outweighs treating (and not arresting, fining, or incarcerating) the ill, perhaps one has had too many bong hits lately. They need to get out of the house more and go to places where medical marijuana is legal (e.g. New Mexico). Far from being populated with stoners and slackers, I'd call e.g. similarly-sized Albuquerque classier than Tucson. The bill is full of safeguards against recreational use--for example, plants must be grown in locked areas--to an extent that looks ridiculous to a legalization proponent, meaning that concern over recreational use is unjustified on yet another level.<br /><br />And they ask if we want people "just running around smoking marijuana" as though "running around" is what marijuana smokers do--and as though the ill, who are in question here, do much running around. MS patients don't run. Huntington's and Parkinson's patients don't run. Cancer patients puking their guts out thanks to chemo don't run. We'd love for them to run.<br /><br />If you would like the ill to suffer needlessly, either to oppress them or to facilitate the oppression of nearly 100% harmless others, and to continue to arrest, try, and fine or incarcerate them when they do get effective treatment, then vote "no" on Proposition 203. If on the other hand you support inexpensive and relatively safe treatment of a number of conditions, if you believe that the ill should not be punished for seeking treatment and that marginal increase in recreational use is far outweighed by this, then vote "yes".B. Kalafuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678386134174713187noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16049045.post-46016597708841658822010-11-01T17:39:00.013-07:002010-11-02T02:07:34.548-07:00Ballot question summaries and recommendations part 1: Propositions 106-113, the Constitutional amendments.Unlike in years past, I have not had time to cover each ballot question in detail. (Interested in joining this project? Send me an e-mail.)<br /><br />However, I've had time to read them and to think them over and have received enough requests to do so that I'll provide recommendations for each:<br /><br /><ul><br /><li><b><a href="http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/Info/PubPamphlet/english/prop106.htm#106">Proposition 106, health care freedom redux</a></b><br /><br /><b>Recommendation: Yes</b>.<br /><br />A stand by the people of any state in the union against strong Federal restrictions of individual choice in purchase of health insurance and health care would have been more useful in 2008 than it is this year. Defeat of 2008's <a href="http://goldwaterstate.blogspot.com/search/label/Feedom%20of%20Choice%20in%20Health%20Care%20Act">Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act</a>, an initiative that <a href="http://goldwaterstate.blogspot.com/2008/10/stand-up-for-your-health-vote-yes-on.html">this 'blogger strongly supported</a>, may have impaired the Democrat-controlled Congress in its effort to simultaneously ban actuarially fair (risk-based) insurance and mandate purchase of what are essentially privately-run socialized medicine schemes. (Up to small details such as the sneaky new taxes and $600 transaction reporting mandate, that seems like a fair summary of what they gave us.)<br /><br />The fight against "Obamacare" in the courts is not over (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coons_v._Geithner">Coons v. Geithner</a>, and that "Coons" is none other than <a href="http://goldwaterstate.blogspot.com/2009/06/catching-up-to-nick-coons.html">Nick Coons</a>) and the passage of Proposition 106 will open up yet another front. It will also protect Arizonans from further destructive government tampering with health insurance and health care.<br /><br />Moreover, it does not forbid constructive health care reform. As was the case for 2008's Proposition 101, Prop. 106 protects against two specific governmental actions. One is the compulsory purchase of health insurance or health-insurance-like schemes, mandated by the Democrats' bill, and the other is governmental interference in the ability to directly purchase medical services, the "next step" in socialization of medicine and something that, far from an imaginary evil, has been done to Canadians and others. Decoupling of insurance from employment, changing the tax structure to disfavor "comprehensive care" price insulation packages and favor actuarially fair insurance, allowing purchase of insurance across state lines, and other real health care reform measures are not forbid by the text of this ballot measure. All it forbids is the advance, under the disguise of reform, of socialist restrictions on what products and services you can purchase or choose not to purchase to take care of yourself and your family.<br /><br />2008's similar but less well-worded measure <a href="http://goldwaterstate.blogspot.com/2009/01/freedom-of-choice-in-health-care-act.html">lost by under 10,000 votes</a>. Dishonest, bizarre, and potentially illegal <a href="http://www.douglasdispatch.com/articles/2008/09/23/news/doc48d96e02e8f7e441939862.txt">electioneering communications by AHCCS head Anthony Rodgers</a> (not prosecuted or so much as investigated by partisan Attorney General Terry Goddard), reported "straight" in the press in a classic case of false balance, may have made the difference. The events of 2010 show 2008's "no" to have been a grave mistake; let's correct it this year, score a propaganda coup for, and open a legal front for health care freedom. Vote "yes" on Prop. 106.<br /><br /><li><b><a href="http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/Info/PubPamphlet/english/prop107.htm#107">Proposition 107: an end to racial preferences in state hiring, education, and contracting.</a></b><br /><br /><b>Recommendation: Yes</b><br /><br />"Affirmative Action" programs served a necessary purpose, but shall they be now-and-forever set-asides, a sort of pillarization, three generations and almost five decades following their passage? They corrected an injustice at one point but now, carried on too long, they are an injustice themselves--and their supporters are blind or senile enough to think we have made no social progress since the 1960s and there will be an instant reversion to bigotry if Prop. 107 passes. Nonsense. Support racial and ethnic equality by voting "yes" on Prop. 107.<br /><br /><a href="http://goldwaterstate.blogspot.com/2010/10/vote-yes-on-proposition-107-3.html">Read more: I dedicated a full post to this one</a>.<br /><br /><li><b><a href="http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/Info/PubPamphlet/english/prop109.htm#109">Proposition 109: Ensuring conservation remains compatible with hunting and fishing</a></b>.<br /><br /><b>Recommendation: Yes</b>, with reservations.<br /><br />This measure's <a href="http://noon109.com">opponents</a> make it out to be the sportsman's SB 1070, a means to filing on lawsuit after lawsuit to harass state government into abandoning all regulations on hunting. And that's the intelligent ones. The stupid ones, for example <a href="http://wildcat.arizona.edu/perspectives/the-propositions-1.1729650">this year's Daily Wildcat editorial board</a>, make arguments like "First of all, hunting and fishing are not constitutional rights. In no way can it be inferred that human beings have a right to kill animals without severely twisting the intent of the Constitution." How stupid can you get: the measure adds rights to the Constitution, it does not change the way such rights are "inferred"--and what is this "intent" thing?<br /><br />What Prop. 109 does is make what is good about the <i>status quo</i> part of the highest law of the State. Authority to regulate hunting and fishing rests in the legislature which may delegate it (as it does) to a Game and Fish Commission. Restrictions on hunting must be "reasonable", which a reasonable person would take to mean that bag limits, seasons, and restrictions on means must be set with regard to scientific and not political concerns.<br /><br />I plan on voting "yes" and I recommend that others do so. Despite this I have two reservations about the "yes" vote. First, the bill is a response to a non-existent problem. There's no reason for Constitutional amendments to be reactionary instead of forward-looking, but still, the reason this was introduced (beyond "get out the vote") is not evident. Besides extremist groups like PETA, is there anyone who politically opposes what this bill protects? The second and more serious reservation is my lack of faith in judges to determine what is reasonable. I've met dozens of scientifically illiterate lawyers in my life--I have to say that a supermajority of the lawyers I've known are both undereducated about scientific fact and inept at thinking in a scientist's fashion--and there is no special qualification, requiring scientific literacy, for a lawyer to become a judge. If a lawsuit is filed defending the "traditional means" of hunting birds with lead shot, will a judge really understand arguments made in favor of tungsten-only policies, especially if a shill "scientist" is found to defend lead? Non-scientists are poor judges of science and when science determines what is reasonable non-scientists will more often than is desirable favor the unreasonable. Passage of Prop. 109 will make non-scientists the "judges" of science more often, but I cannot say to what degree.<br /><br /><li><b><a href="http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/Info/PubPamphlet/english/Prop110.htm">Proposition 110: land swaps to "protect" military bases</a></b><br /><br /><b>Recommendation: No!</b><br /><br />Every so often we hear from people willing to bend over backwards to ensure that the military presence in this state is pampered like a baby. Rick Renzi, for example, <a href="http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/renzi9-2-03.html">tacked a rider onto a 2007 Congressional bill to sabotage San Pedro River conservation</a>, ostensibly to "protect" Fort Huachuca. (To be fair, consistent with the man's history of sleaze, this was also to "protect" his father's Fort Huachuca concession business. And to be fair, he is now <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2185294/">under indictment</a> as a result of the ensuing investigation.) Many approved, because the military is Such A Benefit To The Community--forget that there are costs associated with the influx of federal $$$ and forget that the Army wasn't exactly straining under the San Pedro water table commitments to which it voluntarily agreed.<br /><br />At issue in Prop. 110 is not riparian conservation but rather "encroachment" by development. They make it sound so sneaky: "encroachment." "Encroachment" is what happens when developers build on land near military bases not owned by the military; the gripe is that residents may later complain if the military changes use in a way that diminishes their use of their property. Proposition 110 would allow the exchange of state trust land for developers' land near military bases to prevent "encroachment" without advertisement or auction.<br /><br />This is a giveaway to the military, which should act in a manner appropriate to its surroundings or plan ahead and <i>buy more land</i> (this is part of what Federal "eminent domain takings" are for--has the Legislature heard of those?) if it intends to change base operations to be incompatible with surroundings. And it is at the expense of Arizona taxpayers and schoolchildren and the Arizona natural environment. Sale and lease of state trust land helps to fund the public schools; every parcel just given away to developers in an exchange shortchanges education in the future. The amendment does require that the parcel exchanged be appraised so that the State receives equal or greater value, but this is a mirage: the value of the parcels that cause "encroachment" to be a concern stems from their suitability for development. With use restricted to open-space preservation or ranching and development out of question for what amounts to "forever", the State trust receives little value in return.<br /><br />Furthermore, such compulsory giveaways may rush matters to the point where the State gives away from sensitive parcels key to long-term conservation--parcels better suited, taking a long-term view of things, to ranching than to blading and building--either out of right-wing anti-scientific spite or as a favor to a <a href="http://www.phoenixmag.com/lifestyle/200802/dissecting-arizona/1/">George Johnson type</a> or both.<br /><br />Passage of Proposition 110 is a giveaway to developers, the military, and those who make money off the military's presence at the expense of everyone else. Vote No!<br /><br /><li><b><a href="http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/Info/PubPamphlet/english/prop111.htm#111">Proposition 111: The Lieutenant Governor Amendment</a></b><br /><br /><b>Recommendation: No.</b><br /><br />Passage of Proposition 111 changes the Secretary of State's title to that of "Lieutenant Governor" while maintaining most of the duties of that position, and changes the manner of election such that candidates for governor and lieutenant governor run and are elected together as two-person tickets.<br /><br />The measure's best proponents argue that this will prevent Jan Brewer's situation--a governor without mandate from either the electorate or a party--from recurring. Fair enough, but this is more than offset by the harm done to potential independent candidacies and by increasing the amount of package-dealing in politics and government. Preferring more independent voices at the Capitol even if it does from time to time make the governor's social legitimacy "interesting", I recommend a weak "no".<br /><br />Moreover, candidates for these positions will still run separately before party primaries, which will likely result in incompatible candidates' elections being tied to each other.<br /><br />Curiously enough, Jan Brewer supports this measure, favoring a "smooth transition" in the event that the governor's office is vacated. Again, fair enough, but that concern should be left to the voters.<br /><br /><li><b><a href="http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/Info/PubPamphlet/english/prop112.htm#112">Proposition 112: pushing back the initiative petition deadline.</a></b><br /><br /><b>Recommendation: Yes.</b><br /><br />This measure does two things. It bizarrely changes "centum" to "cent" in a portion of the State constitution (the former is sensible usage, the latter is not), and, more substantially, requires that signatures in support of initiatives or referenda be submitted to the Secretary of State at least six months before the general election.<br /><br />At first glance this seems like a mere restriction on the citizens' initiative power. However, the four-month deadline has proved to be unworkable, not allowing time for court hearings if signature counts are in question. I am not confident that the State will not use the extra time frivolously and still bungle the process, but given what took place in 2008--with some initiatives (e.g. the home warranties measure) making the ballot despite questionable signatures because there was no time for a count, while others missed it because the count was done with no time for hearings--it is clear that improvements are needed.<br /><br /><li><b><a href="http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/Info/PubPamphlet/english/prop113.htm#113">Proposition 113: Secret ballots for union representation elections</a></b><br /><br /><b>Recommendation: Yes</b><br /><br />This amendment establishes a constitutional right to a secret ballot when union representation elections are mandated by law, forbidding the "card check" procedures that would be established by the Federal "Employee Free Choice Act".<br /><br />What an Orwellian name for a bill! The "free choice" available without secret ballots is to sign the card to be free of harassment or intimidation by union "organizers". We haven't had much problem with union thuggery in Arizona, but coming from back east I can tell you that stories of assaults, threats, and battery are no tall tales, nor do is retribution by the union, following an election, against workers who opposed unionization something made-up by free marketeers. <a href="http://www.unionfacts.com/articles/crimeViolence.cfm">Union abuse of workers is very real</a>, and the page that link points to is but a small sampling of incidents. <br /><br />Employees receive much statutory protection from employer harassment concerning unions and retribution against stances taken in union elections--employers are even forbid from making promises to workers of increased benefits if unionization fails! But unions are exempt from RICO laws and getting union harassment (or worse) prosecuted is very difficult. Eliminating secrecy in voting extends the group exposed to union coercion from those who raise their voices to all workers who aren't explicitly pro-union card-signers.<br /><br />Employees and Arizona businesspeople alike will be protected by Prop. 113's passage. It is only union management and leftist ideologues who stand to lose. Vote "yes".<br /></ul>B. Kalafuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678386134174713187noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16049045.post-61755243448748554872010-10-25T18:20:00.003-07:002010-11-02T02:07:44.532-07:00Penny Kotterman: Ideologue, Union Boss, Extremist, and wrong for ArizonaMakers of the "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_%28dietary_supplement%29">Airborne</a>" patent medicine, before it was (even more thoroughly) discredited in a class-action lawsuit, promoted it by emphasizing that it was created by a schoolteacher. Apparently--and I do not understand the mentality--our memories of kindly old Miss So-and-So who taught us in 3rd grade were to cause us to trust it more than something created by scientists and put through clinical trials and for which we actually had some evidence of efficacy.<br /><br />The Penny Kotterman campaign for Superintendent of Public Instruction has attempted a similar marketing strategy. The reason we are given to support Kotterman: she was a schoolteacher. That's it. Not her policy positions, not her values, simply her occupational history. Conveniently omitted before all audiences except those composed of committed anti-private-education ideologues are some inconvenient details: Penny Kotterman is not just any schoolteacher. She was and is one of the most committed opponents to education reform in Arizona.<br /><br />If the name "Kotterman" sounds familiar it is because she was the lead plaintiff in <a href="http://supreme.state.az.us/opin/pdf1999/cv970412.pdf">Kotterman v. Killian</a>, the Left's challenge to the then-new tuition tax credit program. In no uncertain terms, several years before the Supreme Court's decision in <i>Zelman v. Simmons-Harris</i>, the ultimate decision in <i>Kotterman</i> established the legality of the tuition tax credit program under Arizona law.<br /><br />For those who may not have been paying attention, the tuition tax credit program gives a small dollar-for-dollar tax credit to people making donations to "school tuition organizations" which in turn must contribute all but a minuscule portion of what they take in to pay the private-school tuition fees for children. Compared to a direct parent tax credit the program is a kludge that only indirectly addresses the market failure caused by double-payments, but that's not the point here. The tax credit program allowed children at the margin to benefit from real school choice.<br /><br />The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona (then AzCLU) claimed that this tax credit program violated the Arizona Constitution and brought on Kotterman as lead plaintiff. It's worth noting that they did not, and still do not in their follow-up <i>Winn v. Garriott</i>, claim that civil liberties are being violated. (A digression: The only difference between <i>Winn</i> and <i>Zelman</i> is between tax credits and vouchers; by continuing this case post-<i>Zelman</i> ACLU-AZ's board of directors is verging on a breach of its fiducial duty to its membership.) When I served on the ACLU-AZ board of directors whose civil liberties were being violated--who was less free because of tax credits--I'd get dodgy answers ("those who don't want people who give to private schools to get a tax break" or "I don't want 'my money' going to religious schools") combined with shamed aversion of eyes. The <i>Kotterman</i> case itself was based on the anachronistic claim that the Arizona Constitution contained a Blaine Amendment. Even more shameful: those familiar with Blaine Amendments know that they were supported and in some states passed as a means for Protestants to officially oppress Catholics: nothing that the ACLU should support! The AZ Constitution does contain Blaine Amendment-like language but even a genuine Blaine Amendment wouldn't rule out the tuition tax credit program. The AzCLU had to go one step further, in claiming that a tax credit for people saving the state an expense is the same thing as a state expenditure, therefore when donations end up paying for religious education because parents send their kids to religious schools, it is the same as the legislature making an expenditure on religious education.<br /><br />The whole thing strained credulity--it was clearly a post-hoc dressing up of vulgar leftism in civil libertarian language--as does the 9th Circuit's ruling in still-pending Winn that tax credits violate the Establishment Clause because parents choose more often than not to send their kids to religious schools and STO donors choose to support these institutions. (This line of argument was knocked out of the park in <i>Zelman</i> in, as I recall, O'Connor's concurrence: a program cannot be constitutional in one state but unconstitutional in another because the citizens have different religious preferences.)<br /><br />But what does this have to do with Penny Kotterman? She was no <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schechter_Poultry_Corp._v._United_States">Schecter</a>-like ingenue with no ideological commitments who had been personally wronged by a government policy. Indeed given that she had not been harmed it is difficult to determine why she had standing at all. She was at the time the head of the state's largest schoolteachers' union, the Arizona Education Association and was plaintiff--as is often the case in these sorts of challenges--because she was a True Believer that the policy passed by the legislature was wrong. There are no two ways about it: <b>In the late 1990s, teachers' union boss Penny Kotterman attempted to smother school choice, the state's most significant education reform, in its crib.</b> Far from backing away from this today, she stands by her position on her campaign website. (The dippy justification given: 90% of Arizona kids are still in the old public schools. In other words: change has not happened therefore change should not happen.)<br /><hr><br />The usually good <i>East Valley Tribune</i> and many other press outlets, perhaps forgetting what kind of anti-reform extremist Penny Kotterman is, have been suckered like an <i>Airborne</i> purchaser into believing that Kotterman must be good for the state because she was a schoolteacher.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/arizona/politics/article_108e2a1e-de31-11df-a52d-001cc4c002e0.html">To quote the Trib</a>:<blockquote>Penny Kotterman is a former school teacher who has spent 33 years in education, including six years as the president of the state’s largest teacher’s union, the Arizona Education Association.<br /><br />We like Kotterman for two reasons. First, she will be a stronger advocate for public schools, whose performance has declined sharply in the last decade. Beyond that, we think that — after 16 years of having politicians in the superintendent’s office — it’s time to turn that position over to a teacher who has been there and done that in Arizona’s school system.</blockquote><br /><br />As with electing an African-American President of the United States, in principle putting an educator in the Superintendent seat would be a welcome change. However, continuing the analogy with the Presidency: <i>not this teacher</i>. Penny Kotterman has too strong an ideological commitment to be counted on to serve the public interest. While I cannot give him <a href="http://goldwaterstate.blogspot.com/2010/10/bens-endorsement-re-elect-scott-stewart.html">the ringing all-out endorsement I gave Scott Stewart</a>, there is no doubting that, when it comes to education, as a legislator John Huppenthal has been part of the solution. As the East Valley Tribune noted before denying him their endorsement, he's taken the issue quite seriously, researching the alternatives and only then backing the best. He can be counted on to support what is best for Arizona's schoolchildren, no matter what institution is educating them. He can be counted among the co-authors and co-sponsors of important education bills reducing from 18 months to 3 months the amount of time needed to dismiss poorly performing instructors from their jobs, eliminating the cap on charter school enrollment, and eliminating schoolteacher tenure in Arizona. Looking forward, he has been and remains a proponent of merit pay. Kotterman, on the other hand, we can expect to perform an inappropriate balancing of the interests of schoolchildren against the interests of unionized teachers and the public school establishment, and declares on her website that she remains 100% opposed to vouchers and tuition tax credits, which help make school choice a reality for many middle-class families.<br /><br />I thus recommend that readers vote for John Huppenthal on 2 November 2010.B. Kalafuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678386134174713187noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16049045.post-80032357914009969752010-10-25T11:11:00.003-07:002010-10-25T11:11:00.368-07:00Arizona Blue Meanie outed.And while I was busy kicking Dan Heller for his descent into smug and antisocial glibertarianism (or, more likely, while I was sleeping with the post queued up) Josh Brodesky of the Arizona Daily Star gave an infinitely nastier character what he had coming.<br /><br /><a href="http://azstarnet.com/news/local/article_523a376d-9c06-5c39-9963-ec7b49187757.html">The Arizona Blue Meanie has been outed</a> as Tucson lawyer Roger White, no doubt keeping his identity secret to avoid both loss of clients and libel suits. The Blue Meanie's modus operandi was to be wild and Make Things Up. Sometimes this was just insinuation--for example, he didn't accuse Jeff Flake of embezzlement but attempted to connect it with the non-increase in Social Security checks, and sometimes it was outright defamation. Logic rarely played a role in his remarks--in stark contrast to his co-'bloggers. Perhaps this was also a reason for anonymity: who would hire a lawyer who doesn't seem like he thinks his way through things?<br /><br />I'd prepare a shame list, but I recommend just clicking the "Blog for Arizona" link and seeing for yourself. It's hard to find a "Blue Meanie" post that is both reasonable and within the bounds of gentlemanly decency.<br /><br />The State Bar lists White as inactive, but Justia says he practices family law and estate planning. To those disgusted by his politics and personal conduct, I recommend giving your business to <a href="http://www.azwillsandtrusts.com/">Peter Schmerl</a>, a good (modern classical-)liberal and despite his shyness a real stand-up man both privately and in his community.<br /><br />Call me old-fashioned, or an out-of-touch Midwesterner, but this 'blogger believes in wagering one's reputation on one's remarks, on correcting one's self if incorrect, saying "sorry" and meaning it, and in making amends if one wrongs somebody. Where I come from that went simply with being a man (or grown woman). It makes one wonder, what kind of men are anony-'bloggers like White or the contributors to Sonoran Alliance? Anyone who knows these characters personally care to comment?B. Kalafuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678386134174713187noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16049045.post-51355023642260022122010-10-25T01:01:00.002-07:002010-10-25T01:10:08.791-07:00Another endorsement from Ben K: Rick Fowlkes for Corporation CommissionI was told at my wedding that Rick Fowlkes didn't make the ballot, and should have checked up on that before stating it as truth here: to readers, I offer a sincere "sorry!"--and a thanks to Thane for setting me straight in the comments of that last over-the-top hockey-fight post.<br /><br />Let's put an engineer and a free-marketeer on the Corporation Commission: vote <a href="http://rfowlkes.com/">Rick Fowlkes</a>. Instead of writing at length about the man and his platform, I refer readers to <a href="http://goldwaterstate.blogspot.com/search/label/Rick%20Fowlkes">earlier posts</a>. Nothing has changed but his party: Fowlkes remains a man of ideas, the lone candidate who seeks truly to empower consumers and make the markets work.B. Kalafuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678386134174713187noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16049045.post-75788941043247498412010-10-24T08:27:00.005-07:002010-10-24T08:27:00.283-07:00R.I.P. Daniel HellerIt appears that <a href="http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-phoenix">Phoenix Libertarian Examiner</a> Dan Heller, or at least the Heller who was an intelligent commentator and a joy to read, died recently of circle-jerk related injuries.<br /><br />The strongest evidence to date: an <a href="http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-phoenix/don-t-be-a-jerk-vote-libertarian-or-don-t-vote-at-al">article</a> entitled "Don’t be a jerk: Vote Libertarian or Don’t Vote at All"<br /><br />I'll let it speak for itself first:<blockquote>If you vote for increased taxes (or for the existence of taxes at all), you’re voting for strong, scary-looking men with badges and guns (who take their jobs way too seriously) to collect private property—through violent means—from your neighbor. That’s not cool, even if it’s for a “good cause” (i.e.; for whatever righteous redistributionist cause—probably involving children— you support). <br /><br />If you vote to ban or prohibit a substance you don’t like (such as tobacco or alcohol or any other narcotic), you’re supporting the use of violence against other people because you think you know what’s best for them. Come on. Don’t be an jerk. Don’t use or endorse the use of violence because you think you know what’s best for other people. Instead, if you’re going to take a risk by voting, without being a jerk, vote with the Golden Rule in mind—vote unto others as you would have them vote unto you. <br /><br />Would you walk to your next door neighbor’s house, point a gun at him and demand that he gives you some money because you don’t like his “immoral” habits, like smoking? Would you point a gun at your neighbor and demand that he pays you money so you can give it to some homeless children you think deserve it more than he does? Would you say, “Pay up, buddy! I need to buy your health insurance and create a retirement savings account for you. Do it now, or I pull the trigger!” <br /><br />More than likely, no, you wouldn’t, because that’s sociopathic behavior. But why vote like a sociopath then? There’s no reason to. Just stay home. Open a bottle of wine. Relax. </blockquote><br /><br />Taxation is or sometimes can be similar to a shakedown. And a sink is or sometimes can be similar to a toilet. Nevertheless, if you really cannot tell the difference you are not welcome in most homes, including mine. And similarly the popularity of Heller's viewpoint--none of the ideas are new, and they were indeed quite old by the time I believed them as an 18-year-old punk--among the soi-disant "hard core" of the Libertarian Party explains why libertarians are in general unwelcome. It isn't quite shitting in the sink, but the sort of <a href="http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/11/10/against-fake-libertarian-clarity/">false moral clarity</a> that has one telling people not to vote their conscience, and condemning all candidates and by extension the people who vote for them as engaging in sociopathic behavior is rude and antisocial--if not a signal of some kind of sociopathy!<br /><br />Rather than tackle this ab initio I turn to one of the best respected libertarian philosophers of our time, <a href="http://www.virginia.edu/philosophy/Lomasky.htm">Loren Lomasky</a>, best known as the author of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195064747?ie=UTF8&tag=goldwaterstat-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0195064747">Persons, Rights, and the Moral Community</a>. In "Libertarianism as if (the other 99% of) people mattered", an essay appearing in <i>Social Philosophy and Policy <b>15</b></i> (e-mail me if you cannot find a copy--an essay containing the phrase "Libertarians ought not be required by their principles to lead geyserless lives" is almost certain to be fun):<br /><blockquote>If I have adopted the cooperationist rather than the rejectionist attitude toward the society in which I live, then I am thereby committed to acknowledging that although my fellow citizens' views concerning the ethics of taxation are, as I see it, mistaken, the perspective from which they adopt those views is not so unreasonable or so uncivil as to disqualify them from moral respect. ... It is, therefore, not only misleading but also an exercise in borderline incivility to equate taxation with theft, for if it is taken in its straightforward sense, that pronouncement denies the legitimacy of the social order and announces that I regard myself as authorized unilaterally to override its dictates as I would the depredations of the thief. It says to my neighbors that I regard them as, if not themselves thieves, then confederates or willing accomplices in thievery.</blockquote><br /><br />One is left to wonder why Heller neither drops out of society nor engages in war on his neighbors and colleagues. Moreover the equation of taxation with theft is a circular argument and a patently obvious one at that. <br /><br />This isn't to say that there is no ethical component to voting. One is probably compelled by common decency to vote out of office recidivist violators of guaranteed liberties, such as Joe Arpaio, and we shun from polite company at least outright Sheriff Joe supporters. It is likewise for global warming denialists--all other things being equal, candidates who support policies that prevent us from fouling our shared nest receive the vote of moral people, and those who deliberately or negligently spread falsehoods--especially scientists who make silly arguments for ideological reasons--to enhance the short-term profits of the Koch brothers or merely because they think they are spiting Al Gore are shunned. "Not our kind, dear." It isn't war, but we don't simultaneously accuse people of being thieves and sociopaths or in league with thieves and sociopaths yet treat them as friends or welcome neighbors.<br /><br />What makes this all the more amusing is the total falsehood of Heller's newfound moral clarity. Every serious libertarian thinker recognized far more subtlety to these questions--to choose two "accessible" examples, Friedman and Hayek both supported guaranteed minimum incomes for very solidly classical-liberal reasons. If it wasn't done before, Nozick in <i>Anarchy, State, and Utopia</i> made the equation of liberty with a lack of coercion intellectually off-limits: the arguments against it substitute for true rebuttal a merely more strident repetition of the old Spooner/Rand/Rothbard position.<br /><br />By now I'm boring my readers. Let me just finish up by saying that to date I have been able to find force (Oh no, force!!!!!!) in the positions held by every "libertarian" who like Heller categorically condemns force and condemns all who do not vote as he would like for being supporters of force. So yes, your moral clarity is fake. And yours too. And, when I'm guilty of it, mine.<br /><br />For reasons I might get to, at least a few third-party candidates receive my personal endorsement this season, at the very least: Libertarians Joe Cobb and Thane Eichenauer, independent Ted Downing, and, with reservations, Libertarians Nick Coons and Steve Stoltz. Rick Fowlkes would get my endorsement, too, but he's not on the ballot. And for now the link to Heller will remain. His back-catalog--before what must have been a blow to the head (perhaps from a Rothbard book?) had him repeating 1970s cliches in his columns and, we see, unable to distinguish the sink and the toilet--is interesting and his recent output cannot detract from it. Moreover we can expect false moral clarity to be a mere phase he's going through. It happens to most self-identifying "libertarians" and the more intelligent ones get over it eventually.B. Kalafuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678386134174713187noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16049045.post-48615220465749299222010-10-24T00:15:00.003-07:002010-10-24T02:08:58.750-07:00Vote "Yes" on Proposition 107: 3 generations of discrimination has been at least enough.This year's <a href="http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/Info/PubPamphlet/english/Prop107.htm">Proposition 107</a>, the "Arizona Civil Rights Initiative", is simple, almost self-explanatory. To quote: <blockquote>36. Preferential treatment or discrimination prohibited; exceptions; definition<br /><br />SECTION 36. A. THIS STATE SHALL NOT GRANT PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO OR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ANY INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP ON THE BASIS OF RACE, SEX, COLOR, ETHNICITY OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN THE OPERATION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, PUBLIC EDUCATION OR PUBLIC CONTRACTING.<br /><br />B. THIS SECTION DOES NOT:<br /><br />1. PROHIBIT BONA FIDE QUALIFICATIONS BASED ON SEX THAT ARE REASONABLY NECESSARY TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, PUBLIC EDUCATION OR PUBLIC CONTRACTING.<br /><br />2. PROHIBIT ACTION THAT MUST BE TAKEN TO ESTABLISH OR MAINTAIN ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY FEDERAL PROGRAM, IF INELIGIBILITY WOULD RESULT IN A LOSS OF FEDERAL MONIES TO THIS STATE.<br /><br />3. INVALIDATE ANY COURT ORDER OR CONSENT DECREE THAT IS IN FORCE AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION.<br /><br />C. THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE FOR A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION ARE THE SAME, REGARDLESS OF THE INJURED PARTY'S RACE, SEX, COLOR, ETHNICITY OR NATIONAL ORIGIN, AS ARE OTHERWISE AVAILABLE FOR A VIOLATION OF THE EXISTING ANTIDISCRIMINATION LAWS OF THIS STATE.<br /><br />D. THIS SECTION APPLIES ONLY TO ACTIONS THAT ARE TAKEN AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION.<br /><br />E. THIS SECTION IS SELF-EXECUTING.<br /><br />F. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "STATE" INCLUDES THIS STATE, A CITY, TOWN OR COUNTY, A PUBLIC UNIVERSITY, INCLUDING THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA, ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY AND NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY, A COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, A SCHOOL DISTRICT, A SPECIAL DISTRICT OR ANY OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION IN THIS STATE.</blockquote><br /><br />Opponents of this proposition tend to make two claims. One is that quotas do not exist in Arizona. True, but it isn't the whole truth. While there are no quotas per se, there are plenty of preference programs, as documented in a <a href="http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/Common/Img/preferencebrief.pdf">Goldwater Institute whitepaper</a><br /><br />The other is that preference programs exist as a matter of justice or are necessary to prevent discrimination. That's outright nonsense: the way to not discriminate on the basis of ethnicity into account is to consciously stop discriminating on the basis of ethnicity, which is not the same thing as giving preferences.<br /><br />As we were reminded by <a href="http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/24/rand-paul-rachel-maddow-opinions-columnists-richard-a-epstein.html">Richard Epstein</a> and others in the wake of Rand Paul's bout with foot-in-mouth syndrome earlier this year, there is a reasonably compelling argument to be made for government affirmative action programs as a sort of remedy for negative discrimination in the immediate past, so as not to "lock in" for a generation or longer the results of such discrimination. If the government for a time deliberately did not hire Martians, it would make sense to give preference to Martians in its next few hires so as not to keep Martians more or less locked out until all the Earthlings retire, and to avoid the effects such a policy would have on the next generation of Martians (and Earthhlings!) <br /><br />But Arizona's preference programs are not time-limited remedies to past discrimination and not narrowly tailored in intent or effect even if they avoid quotas. At best they are responses to discrimination of decades ago. Some of their supporters seem to think we are living decades ago. Take the League of Women Voters, which stated in the measure's publicity pamphlet that "The LWVAZ believes that all qualified candidates should get a fair chance to compete for jobs or obtain an education based on individual merit, not special connections. Proposition 107 would turn back the clock to a society of "good old boy" networks where women and people of color routinely face discrimination. "<br /><br />Were preference programs repealed immediately after their institution, yes, this would be true. The same people would be in charge, making the hires they would make without it. But we've made decades of social progress since then and while bigots can still be found in trailer parks and retirement homes they are no longer in charge of the university or government. Indeed those university, county, municipal, and state bureaucrats who the League of Women Voters implicitly claims would not allow others to obtain an education or compete for jobs based on merit unless prohibited from making decisions based on what a reasonable person would think to be merit (a hint for LWVAZ members: "merit" is not race, gender, or ethnicity) should be outraged.<br /><br />I repeat: The moral authority of preference programs expired decades ago. The bigots of old are retired or dead. Thanks in part to past preference programs, a new generation has not taken their place. Proponents of continued ethnic discrimination have a difficult question to answer, and you should ask them it whenever you get the chance: "How long should discrimination persist, and under what conditions would you support its end?" The answer "as long as there is inequality between ethnic groups" is inadequate. If imbalances still exist, it is likely that they are not the direct result of past discrimination. It is evident that further "positive" or "reactionary" discrimination to remedy such imbalances will be ineffective, in addition to being unjust.<br /><br />That injustice, acknowledged in both the majority opinion and dissent in Grutter v Bollinger (the U.S. Supreme Court case upholding discriminatory programs if narrowly tailored and limited in duration), is now holding back race relations and may be the cause of much residual ethnic prejudice. We're at the point where many a person of European or South or East Asian ancestry, on seeing someone whose ancestors came from the "global south" be admitted to a selective program at a state university, receive a state contract, or be hired as a state employee, suspects that that admittee, that contractor, that employee may have gotten there through an unfair and discriminatory process. That is not a situation we'd like the suspected "affirmative action" admittees, contractors, or hires to be put in.<br /><br /><br />To quote native Arizonan and retired Supreme Court Justice O'Connor's majority opinion in Grutter v Bollinger:<br /><br /><blockquote> [Accordingly,] race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time. This requirement reflects that racial classifications, however compelling their goals, are potentially so dangerous that they may be employed no more broadly than the interest demands. Enshrining a permanent justification for racial preferences would offend this fundamental equal protection principle.</blockquote><br /><br />A policy limited in time must be subject to either sunset or periodic review. The Arizona legislature has established no sunset or periodic review for its discriminatory programs. By initiative, we have forced a review. Let's sunset the policy ourselves this November 2nd. Vote for progress on race and ethnicity. Vote "yes" on Proposition 107.B. Kalafuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678386134174713187noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16049045.post-79235936012065707772010-10-23T23:10:00.003-07:002010-10-23T23:12:28.957-07:00The little differences.I've spent 7 years in Tucson, will be 8 before I leave, and I'm still learning some of the cultural differences between here and "back east"<br /><br />Case in point: Nobody, except me, wears evening clothes (aka a tuxedo) to the symphony's opening night.<br /><br />Neither way is clearly better, but one sure is strange to me!B. Kalafuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678386134174713187noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16049045.post-25278640402308979622010-10-22T20:05:00.001-07:002010-10-22T20:05:00.763-07:00A bit on Scott Stewart's challenger Kevin MattocksIt's no secret that <a href="http://goldwaterstate.blogspot.com/2010/10/bens-endorsement-re-elect-scott-stewart.html">Scott Stewart</a> is the only member of the PCC governing board who works in the private sector or even has a strong private-sector background.<br /><br />Kevin Mattocks, his opponent, also has a bit of a private sector background, but for the most part has worked as a policeman, first in Mesa, then in Oro Valley. Recently he has been head of the FOP, one of the police unions. Stewart (see below) believes him to be the government employee union candidate, and knowing Stewart (and knowing Stewart to be honest to the point where one would mistake him for a Quaker) I'd be very surprised were this were an exaggeration. Indeed, Mattocks confirms the narrative, perhaps inadvertently, <a href="http://kevinmattocks.org/" rel="nofollow">on his own website</a>:<blockquote>I had many discussions with my twin brother who works as a police officer with Pima Community College. <i>The employees of the college</i> learned of my enthusiasm and eligibility to run for this position in district 4. They met with me and talked me into running.</blockquote> (emphasis mine). Not requests from community leaders, not even faculty and students, and certainly not any intrinsic interest in the position motivated Mattocks: college employees, perhaps perturbed that Stewart backed a 40-hour work week, asked him.<br /><br />Government employee union candidate or not, what has struck be about Mattocks is his vacuity. Why is he running? He doesn't say. What does he want to do differently? The best we find on his website: <blockquote>I believe in personal responsibility, family first, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American and Christian values and a strong national defense. I believe the role of government should provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. I ask for your support and your financial support as I continue my election. I have never planned or run an election nor do I consider myself a politician. I appreciate your interest in my success.</blockquote><br />How any of this translates to PCC Governing Board policy is anybody's guess. He goes on a bit: <blockquote>...Issues:<br /><br /> *<br /><br /> Accountability with our Tax Dollars<br /> *<br /><br /> Affordable and Accessible Community College Education<br /> *<br /><br /> Public Safety<br /> *<br /><br /> Improvement of Adult Education Programs<br /> *<br /><br /> Community Development </blockquote><br /><br />And the <a href="http://mattocks4pcc.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4">second version of the website</a>, although more polished, also lacks concrete statements about PCC or county policy.<br /><br />I do not attend PCC governing board meetings so I cannot speak to how much interest Mattocks has shown in the month-to-month concerns of that body. But his website and his non-existent statements to the press appear to indicate either that he is uninterested (i.e. he was put up to this), that he hasn't researched the issues at all, or that he hasn't a clue about the PCC governing board's concerns and the compromises they must make with each other and with reality and thus has no policy ideas at all.<br /><br />It would be small of me to argue that Stewart is a better choice because he is a highly educated engineer and his opponent is a police officer whose regard for intellect may or may not be signaled by his writing on that first website. Surely an "everyman" can also act to advance higher education; in the American tradition millions of "everyman" parents, for several generations, have done so by encouraging and pushing their children to hit the books and go to college. But whereas Stewart has much to say about the value of education to the individual and the public and specifically about the role of the community college, conspicuously missing from Mattocks's (few) statements concerning his run for office are any discussion of education. Not even the vapid Congressional "I support education and the children..." Nothing. <br /><br />I ask again, and will be far nastier about it than the ever-polite Stewart: Why is Mattocks running? He appears to have no interest in the position, to bring nothing to the race, and if elected it does not appear that he will bring anything to the seat except his rear end. It is not up to us to give him the benefit of the doubt. It's up to him to convince us, to share with us his ideas and the way he thinks about policy. He's not even trying to do so.<br /><br /><hr><br />From Stewart's website:<br /><blockquote>A short statement about my opponent<br /><br />For twelve years now I've worked to take care of the Pima College staff in both good times and bad. In fact, I've almost always been the board member to publicly defend our employees’ compensation package. This year, however, I have opposition from the government employee union sector. Personally, I believe my opponent was recruited by Pima's union leadership because of the manner in which we have dealt with recent funding cuts. Let me explain why I think this.<br /><br />Like everyone else, we have to do more with less. However, instead of instituting layoffs and furloughs we've expanded our workweek from 37.5 hours to 40 and cut pay 2.7% per hour (resulting in 4% more pay per week). Unfortunately, the union leadership sees only more hours for less money per hour. They have even publicly complained about the hardships of the 40-hour workweek – this at a time when many folks in the community have lost their jobs!<br /><br />I have met my opponent and he's an intelligent and positive man. Nonetheless, I believe his background as a government employee and a government employee union representative could very well change the board from one that looks out for the community first to one that first looks out for college employees first. Naturally, I believe we have to take care of the employees but our primary mission is to serve this community FIRST and foremost.</blockquote>B. Kalafuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678386134174713187noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16049045.post-89935093544418295532010-10-22T14:33:00.002-07:002010-10-22T17:37:29.053-07:00No recommendation on Proposition 302A first for this 'blog: on one ballot question, I provide no recommendation. Perhaps (Treasurer candidate) Thane will be able to offer more perspective.<br /><br />The legislature's (constitutionally-mandated) balancing of the budget depended in part on the sweeping of tobacco surtax revenue into the general fund. In 2006, voters approved <a href="http://goldwaterstate.blogspot.com/2006/10/proposition-203-smoke-its-good-for.html">Proposition 203, the Arizona Early Childhood Development and Health Initiative</a>, sometimes called "First Things First" after the bill's supporters' name for themselves, which added an eighty-cents-per-pack surtax to the cost of cigarettes and established a far-left, Great Society style board to promote government-run pre-K schooling and well-baby care, which since its establishment is estimated by its supporters to have provided services of some sort or another to half of the children age five and under in the State.<br /><br />Since the funds were set aside by voters, they can only be re-allocated by voters. This year's <a href="http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/Info/PubPamphlet/english/prop302.htm#302">Proposition 302</a> does that. It defunds the activities of the Early Childhood Development and Health Board and sweeps the eighty cent surtax into the General Fund.<br /><br />On the one hand, this is a good thing. It balances the budget and removes a California-style pre-allocation from our system of government, putting budgeting back in the hands of the legislature, which is better equipped than the single-issue ballot question voter to make cost-benefit decisions in context. And it defunds a program that not only makes Arizona children government dependents from birth, but also one that does so unsustainably, by taxing an unhealthy and ordinarily extremely rude activity that by rights we'd like to see diminished by orders of magnitude and that has over time went from socially acceptable to acceptable in all but the politest of circles to generally unacceptable, at least among educated folk.<br /><br />On the other hand, it means that the budget, more so than it is already, is funded by many petty taxes that are difficult to reduce and easy for some to impose on others. Structurally, taxes--except those that amount to user fees like road taxes or obvious corrections of externalities (Pigouvian taxes) like carbon taxes--should be few in number and of the sort that affect most or all people in a fairly direct manner.<br /><br />I don't see either of "yes" or "no" on Proposition 302 having a clear advantage here and will not share how I plan to vote on this. Perhaps commenters have insight or perhaps Thane will clarify, but for now: you're on your own.B. Kalafuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678386134174713187noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16049045.post-9563099622340850102010-10-21T22:45:00.005-07:002010-10-22T00:05:00.630-07:00Ben's endorsement: Re-elect Scott Stewart to the Pima Community College governing boardThe beginning of my (late) remarks on the upcoming election, this one is more a personal endorsement than any. For as long as I have known Scott Stewart--almost as long as I have been in Tucson--I have known him to be a man of integrity and not only a capable intellect but someone with enough concern for propriety and realities of the day to be said to exhibit wisdom. <br /><br />He has his detractors (*cough* <i>glibertarians...</i> *cough*) but the worst they say about him is that he is <i>not</i> a reactionary or ideologue, that he takes this "public servant" stuff seriously and is acting to better Pima College and the community rather than to further some outside agenda. So self-absorbed and overcertain of their small beliefs are his detractors that they do not realize that to <i>normal</i> people what they are saying would be a serious compliment!<br /><br />Beyond that, just consider what Scott Stewart himself has wrote of his service on the PCC Governing Board:<br /><blockquote>My Record (Scott Stewart)<br /> <br />When I was first elected my primary intention was to keep the college effective and affordable for both students and taxpayers. I also was interested in exporting Pima's strengths to other institutions. The reason this was a priority was (and it still is!) Pima's fastest growing market share was remedial education for recent high school graduates.<br /> <br />I have never governed as a partisan. Instead, I work hard and study the College and the choices before it. Some of our main choices relate to where our students come from and where they go next, either transferring to a 4-year university or going directly to work. I believe my study has allowed me to make the best judgments possible regarding such choices.<br /><br />In my time on the Board, I've personally worked to attract students from alternative venues such as charter and private schools and home-schooling. I have ensured Pima remains friendly to such students. We have reached out as well to these institutions and associations to help them solve their student challenges. I've also successfully pushed partnerships so our graduates can afford further education beyond Pima. The College now offers several of these.<br /><br />During my years on the Board, I've helped Pima make the following improvements:<br /><br /><br />· More transparency - our “metrics” are now posted on the PCC website<br /><br />· Moved our Aviation Technology Program to a site on the airport grounds to qualify for FAA Certification in more areas<br /><br />· Increased the staff workweek from 37.5 to 40 hours<br /><br />· Moved staff closer to a “Pay for Performance” plan, rather than simply basing their pay on time employed<br /><br />· Improved pay dramatically for the high-demand nursing faculty<br /><br />· Ensured that Pima listens to local employers so we can learn what is needed and wanted from our graduates<br /><br />· Ensured the College works with local high schools, charter schools, private schools, and home school associations to know how their students do on our placement exams.<br /><br />· Reduced opportunities for identity theft by insisting that Pima not use Social Security Numbers as a student ID<br /><br /> Obviously, I'm proud to have successfully worked on all of the above. I would appreciate your support to continue my work.</blockquote><br /><br />There's nothing in there not to like, and to the best of my knowledge no serious omission of any reason to not support the man, either. I give the re-election of Scott Stewart my wholehearted endorsement.<br /><br />To read more, visit <a href="http://www.stewartforpima.org/">www.stewartforpima.org</a>.B. Kalafuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678386134174713187noreply@blogger.com0