President 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.

"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."

And now a direct rejection of the thesis that rhetoric caused the spree shooting, without subsequently backhandedly insinuating that it did: a civil case for civility.

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.

Addendum 2 (BSK re: the UA choir): There is no more American song than the Shaker Hymn. When I hear just the melody in Appalachian Spring 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.

There 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.

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.

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.

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 in spite of the facts using that in an attempt to score political points against the Right.

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.

Kudos, by the way, to Rodney Glassman for telling Democrats to stop pointing fingers until they have the facts.

Glassman aims for the Senate.

Back when Rodney Glassman was first seeking public office, I remarked that he was an overgrown fratboy, a trustafarian dandy with a sense of entitlement big enough to get him kicked out of Carol West's office, and doubted his capability to be an effective City Councilman. (Follow the keyword link at the bottom of the page for some colorful information, or just search Tucsonweekly.com for "Glassman" and "get out of town".) To my surprise--and pleasantly, as I don't like seeing people screw up--he grew in to the position quickly. Those who pay attention to the City Council know that he's actually been the voice of good sense more often than not.

By now, his resignation from office in order to run for the U.S. Senate is old news. Do I think he's ready? Is anybody ready for the Senate? Is this an endorsement? No, but it's an update. And for the record, I think Lori Oien would make a great Councilwoman, the same as I did when she first ran for the seat.

My unsolicited advice for Glassman:

1. Lose the smirk. Learn to smile like a man.
   
2. Don't do it. Resignation is irrevocable, but it gives you the chance to go do something with your life. "(1) Trustafarian Grijalva flunky and (2) City Councilman" is a shoddy resumé. Add a science or engineering degree to that list of credentials and actually make or build something. Or go into business for yourself in something nontechnical and find out how the private sector works for those who create and don't merely inherit wealth. Before his stint on the Phoenix City Council, Barry Goldwater had experience as a military officer and with the day-to-day direction of a private firm. One that he inherited a stake in, yes, but that did not prevent him from learning how wealth is created, how free-market capitalism benefits the little guy, and how to sympathize meaningfully with those who are trying to get a leg up in this world. If the Democratic Party has a serious cultural shortcoming beyond its willful ignorance of free-market solutions to modern problems such as what is (not was, still is) wrong with health care and health insurance, it is this lack of appreciation for the entrepreneur. One cannot divide the U.S.A. almost literally into classes, into "haves" and "have nots", into "the rich" and "the poor", each with de facto different legal status, one as the permanent recipient of transfers and the end in himself and the other as the permanent source of transfers and a means to an end, and at the same time respect the entrepreneur. Come out and scramble like the rest of us, and it'll make you better than the average Democrat.
   
3. Krugman's popular work, especially for the New York Times, is shameful trash. Krugman the scholar is worthwhile reading. Dive in. And read some Hayek while you're at it for background. I'm serious.
   
4. Attend a few Tea Party rallies. Just hold your nose and do it. Get outside your comfort zone and learn something about Americans' values.
   
5. Let yourself be photographed with a shouldered AR-15. It'll save you a lot of trouble.
   

Tucson Ciy Council proposes double taxation of renters; 700 turn out to protest

Like the State of Arizona, the City of Tucson created new spending programs and padded old ones during the construction boom. Now that the boom has went bust, they're predictably trying to raise taxes to balance the budget, when they should instead be cutting programs. (Talk to an opponent of spending cuts sometime. It's amusing. If we can't eliminate programs without sliding into some sort of Third World conditions, why don't I remember it being so bad before they existed?)

Among the tax increase schemes under consideration is a 2% rent tax, as reported in the Tucson Citizen and Arizona Daily Star. Over 700 people turned out last night to protest this proposal, with well over 100 requesting to speak.

The issue was mostly framed as being whether or not renters are able to pay the increase. That's a silly way to discuss taxation, it would have nearly any small tax increase being OK. Harms come at the margin. The questions that should be asked are: should the additional money be the City's? Why? And is the tax fair?

Councilwoman Karin Uhlich, according to Daily Star commentator Josh Brodesky, has renters paying less than their fair share. As this is ridiculous, Uhlich should be voted out of office. Renters do not directly pay property taxes; their rent instead reflects the level of property tax that must be paid by their landlords. They pay rent, the landlord pays the property tax, thus they're already paying for city services just as homeowners and business property owners do. A rent tax would amount to double taxation of a particular class of people, a balancing of the budget at renters' expense to the benefit of homeowners and business property owners.

The rental tax is the brainchild of Uhlich (D-Ward 3), Regina Romero (D-Ward 1) and Rodney Glassman (D-Fraternity Row). When it comes time for a vote, I'll let readers know who was in favor and who was against. Those who voted in favor ought to be evicted from their offices when the time comes--both double taxation and taxation of peculiar classes ought be simply unacceptable. Tucsonans often give their officials a free pass. The presence of over 700 angry members of the Geritol Set at last night's meeting means that this may not be the case. Opponents of rent taxes are getting organized, having launched a (lowbrow) website. Word is that John Kromko, Mr. Ballot Initiative, is considering launching a referendum effort to repeal the rent tax if the Council approves it. Kromko's ability to get things done has waned in recent years, but here's hoping he has one more success in him.

A further hearing will be held on Tuesday, 5 May at 5:30 PM. I'll be able to attend this one, and will keep readers up to date on further developments.

Last one about Rodney Glassman

Unless he puts his foot in his mouth or a prostitute is found dead in his trunk (hmm...that gets me to thinking: Rodney Glassman is the local candidate in recent years most likely to be found with a dead hooker in his trunk) this is the last post I'll be doing about Rodney Glassman.

I was going to stop already, but this is so over-the-top I can't miss the opportunity.

Glassman has taken to supercillious pretense whenever he feels Lori Oien is talking more about him than the issues. (Glassman has yet to learn how much character matters when people are to be trusted with positions of power.) Yet he began a candidate-to-candidate Q and A session by asking Oien about her views on abortion, which is about as much a city issue as is foreign aid to sub-Saharan Africa.

Then came the soul-bearing moment. "When I go about having sex with women, I like to know we're on the same page."

I wonder if, after having knocked up some debutante he's impressed with his slick ways and big bucks, he pesters her to get an abortion like he pestered Jim Kolbe and others for donations. Is that why he now likes to see that they're on the same page?

Either way, if my sister were to bring home a man like that to Thanksgiving dinner, there'd be fisticuffs, blood, and arrests. I'd call him a weasel, but weasels are warm blooded.

Perhaps someone at the Star reads my 'blog.

I spent a few minutes last Friday writing about Rodney Glassman's business antics, and a few more dropping links to the post on Craigslist and other comment boards, to find today that the Daily Star has, with professional quality, covered the matter. The papers have previously been quiet about Glassman's past.

"Mission accomplished!", or did I waste my time. I'll never know.

Read the comments below the Star article. You'll find that Glassman, at one time, barred kids who bought their equipment elsewhere from skating on the rink. What a weasel! Penny wise and pound foolish, for sure. One can actually get away with that, in government--"Do as I say, or else"--which is why we want the carpetbagging phony-philanthropist Glassman away from the reins of power.

Rodney Glassman's past life: why character matters in the Tucson City Council race.

If you want to embarrass Tucson City Council hopeful Rodney Glassman, ask him what he was up to when he got himself kicked out of Carol West's office back in 2000. It's already cost him her endorsement, as well as that of former councilman Jerry Anderson, who's leading "Democrats for Oien." In a city full of yellow-dogs of the worst, pseudo-elitist type--the sort that confound Democrat registration with a measure of intelligence and consider it a 1:1 correlate with being a Good Person--that means a lot.

I don't know whether or not Glassman's transfer to the U of A, where he picked up three degrees from known easy programs, was brought about by academic difficulties at Cornell. Regardless, while he was here, he took over management of his family's struggling ice arena.

The official story is that Glassman turned the operation around, making it profitable. We're supposed to admire him for this: it's what passes for accomplishment in the life of a man who has only credentials. What the Glassman camp doesn't tell you is that Glassman first tried to get the City to bail the operation out, becoming so obnoxious about it to alienate Anderson and become the first and last person West ever had to ask to leave.

Glassman has not denounced this rent-seeking behavior or even apologized, leading us to one of two conclusions:

1. Rodney Glassman the Councilman would approve of the behavior of Rodney Glassman the businessman and accept the transfer of the burden of failing enterprises from private owners to taxpayers.
   
2. Rodney Glassman is truly wicked. He knows that government bailouts of business are wrong, but asked for one anyway.
   

Pace Richard Dawkins, I'm not inclined to think of people as evil or wicked without good reason. Thus I'm left to conclude that to elect Rodney Glassman to the city council would be to elect another cronyist who believes that government should help private enterprise along with favors and privileges.

Should casting a vote for Lori Oien even be in question? If it still is, the ever-irascible right-wing commentator Emil Franzi has dug up some truths about Glassman and his (partly tax-funded!) vanity foundation that will make your decision certain.

The Tucson City Election: Kalafut's Picks

Tucsonans vote on two ballot propositions, a mayor, and three city councilmen this fall. Election Day is 6 November, but due to the universal mailing of early ballots, many, including me, have already voted. My choices were as follows:

• No on Proposition 100
  This proposition would raise the Mayor's annual salary from $42,000 per year to $48,000, and each City Councilman's salary from $24,000 to $36,000.
  These positions--especially the city councilor's--are not supposed to be full-time employment; that is why Tucson has a City Manager. The Citizens' Commission on Public Service and Compensation is recommending the increase because higher salaries will attract more "diverse and representative" candidates, increase salaries to keep pace with inflation, align salaries with average salaries in the city, and because the duties of the Mayor and councilmen supposedly necessitate more than 40 hours of work per week.
  
  If the Mayor and Council are working more than 40 hours per week on their duties, something is culturally or structurally wrong with each office. Rejecting Proposition 100 forces them to address this existential question, and may move us in the direction of adopting the superior Council-manager form of government, already common in the rest of the state.
  
  
• No on Proposition 200
  Adding a "garbage fee" to the water bill without lowering taxes, allowing competition, or instituting a pay-for-use fee schedule was one of the City Council's lowest acts in recent memory. Prop. 200, the Tucson Water Users' Bill of Rights would remedy this, but at the same time prohibit privatization or either garbage or water, imposes a water delivery cap without an associated permit-trading system, forbids use of purified effluent as tapwater, and would likely result in an increase in wildcat well drilling and sprawl development. As I've written before, it's a deliberately deceptive mess, forcing us to swallow three doses of bad to get one of good. Send it to the rubbish heap to join John Kromko's political career.
  
  
• Bob Walkup for Mayor
  I wanted for Dave Croteau to come together as a candidate, so that I could vote for him over the growth lobby's choice, incumbent Bob Walkup. When I thought he was going to support a cap-and-trade approach to water conservation, he had my vote, however, he abandoned that position when his party endorsed Prop. 200 in the process of courting--or not courting; I'm hearing different stories from different people--John Kromko, the proposition's author. Croteau has a vision involving sustainability and "re-localization" which he paints in broad strokes, never making the connection to concrete policy proposals, or clarifying how he'd accomplish his objective without running afoul of the State and Federal Constitutions, the laws of economics, or the liberty of the people.
  
  Although he speaks of a "living wage", I don't see him as being Yet Another Leftist Class Warrior. I do see him as being representative of a problem that has plagued the Green Movement from its beginnings: aesthetics do not readily translate to policy. There are no major Green think-tanks, nor is significant academic scholarship done is support of the Green position. The libertarians, social democrats, and conservatives can reference serious works of philosophy and economics to support their positions; the Greens are stuck with touchy-feely values that amount to little more than unconstrained statements about the best of naively possible worlds. (I share quite a few of those values, but find that the Greens, in their guessing-game, get their policy implications mostly wrong. That's a matter for another time.)
  
  We'd all love to live in Candyland, but I'd like to know what a person is going to do about the here-and-now, given the dirty constraints of reality, before I trust him with any power. Croteau is off in space; Walkup, as we've seen, doesn't screw things up too badly, so in the absence of serious competition, he has my vote by default.
  
  
• Beryl Baker for City Council, Ward One
  
  Speaking of candidate who paint with a broad brush, it's been difficult to get detail from Regina Romero. The issue about which she has spoken the most is KIDCO, a city-funded after-school babysitting program. Romero would have it expanded and make it more educational. That would be a fine position for the executive director of a charitable non-profit or even a daycare entrepreneur, but I expect City Councilmen to have more to say about matters of concern to residents and local businesses than about how to expand a handout program.
  
  Beryl Baker, on the other hand, is a neighborhood activist advocating nuts-and-bolts reform. In light of that, I forgave her endorsement of Prop. 200 and gave her my vote.
  
  
• Lori Oien for City Council, Ward Two
  
  Lori Oien's record of community involvement is even more impressive than Baker's, and she offers a concrete platform of fiscal responsibility and improved city services.
  
  Rodney Glassman is an arrogant trustafarian dandy with an inflated resume. He runs a charitable foundation, yes, and is what passes for a socialite in Tucson, but his only discernible past political or activist experience was as a Raul Grijalva lackey. (Grijalva, for those who've forgotten, is an ineffectual, thuggish Congressman with a far-left voting record and a campaign strategy based on unionism and class warfare.) The newspapers say Glassman offers "leadership"; I find him as vapid now as I did when he defeated the far more substantial Robert Reus in the primary. Let him grow up a bit and learn to offer voters policy, not just personality. Vote Lori Oien.
  
  
• Dan Spahr for City Council, Ward Four
  Dan Spahr's tying of his campaign to the occupation of Iraq with a "Support the Troops" slogan is both tacky and bizarre, and he's a bit of a populist in the right-wing empty-head sense regarding social issues, but he brings some good to the table, including community policing and a belief that the Rio Nuevo strategy must be changed to focus on private investment, not public subsidy. The Tucson City Council has needed a fiscal conservative dissenter of the sort that Ann Day has been on the Pima County Board of Supervisors, and Shirley Scott hasn't been it. In the interest of throwing the bums out, I held my nose and voted Spahr.