A practical difference between George Bush and Barack Obama

President 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.

But in at least one respect he is less dictatorial than his predecessor. When George Bush came to Tucson for a 2008 fundraiser for Tim Bee, 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.

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 today yesterday. [BSK: post rescheduled.]

And Bee never did reimburse the public treasury or the many he inconvenience. He did, however, end up the victim of some great real-life trolling.

Miscellaneous Endorsements: Pima County and Southern Arizona

And now for the post sure to annoy my readers: candidate endorsements. Just remember, this is a nonpartisan 'blog, so regardless of your party affiliation you can expect that I endorse candidates who don't share it.

• Elect Brad Roach Pima County Attorney. I never thought I'd endorse a candidate also given the endorsement of the policemen's union, but (Republican) Roach's intelligent and temperate approach has earned the support of people with many political affiliations and tendencies, including quite a few Libertarians and Democrats.
  
  It doesn't hurt, of course, that when it comes to election integrity, incumbent Barbara LaWall is part of the problem, or that she has run the office in a highly political fashion, engaging in outright misconduct concerning the Stidham murder. And it probably helps that Roach was one of the principal victims of that misconduct. But Roach has taken the race far beyond questions of professional propriety by focusing on issues of intelligent management of the office.
  
  LaWall likes to promote high trial statistics, but a high trial rate wastes time and resources. Roach would like to get the office focused on putting the truly bad eggs--the ten percent of criminals who commit eighty-five percent of the crime--to trial and off the streets, letting nonviolent drug offenders and the simply stupid plea bargain. LaWall is reluctant to hire defense attorneys and turns down anyone who's ever so much as interned in the Public Defender's office; Roach understands that former defense attorneys often make the best prosecutors (and vice versa.)
  
  He supports, to some extent, the death penalty, and gives this "victims first" nonsense--more worthy of the Arabian legal system than ours--more talk than it's worth, but his election will bring positive change to the office and to the political culture of Pima County. (And possibly also to the state: LaWall and Terry Goddard together are principals in the Napolitano machine's culture of illegal electioneering and impunity.) I won't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I must, however, note that I almost feel it a breach of loyalty to not endorse the accessible, open-minded, even-tempered Green Party idealist Claudia Ellquist, who is seeking this office for the second time. Like Roach, Ellquist has made sincere efforts to reach across party lines for votes and support. Like Roach, she promotes more intelligent management of the office, a higher standard of ethics (i.e. a responsibilty to justice, not just to winning cases), and enforcement of the electioneering laws LaWall and Goddard apply selectively at best. Unlike Roach, she also opposes the death penalty. I'd vote for both if I could, but our primitive voting system has it that if I vote for Ellquist over the much more broadly supported Roach, I might help to bring about the least desired outcome. I encourage a vote for Roach, but if you can't bring yourself to vote Republican, vote Ellquist.
  
  
• Elect Barney Brenner Pima County Supervisor in District 3. Incumbent Sharon Bronson faced a challenger--me!--in 2004 who couldn't commit himself to the race. As a result she has amassed a substantial war-chest that has been spent on advertising and direct mail against Brenner, who came within 1500 votes of defeating her in 2000. Most of the direct mail and ads have been of the lowest sort we see in politics: "Look what I've done as Supervisor! What did Brenner do for you? He's not Supervisor and I am!"
  
  Bronson original sought the office because, like me, she was an environmentalist. It didn't take long, however, before she was running the county for the benefit of the development lobby. Shilling for business is a slander often hurled at free-marketeers, perhaps as misdirection: on the local level, it is the province of the left-winger. "If I let these guys have what they want, I'll have all sorts of funding for superfluous programs!" is the thinking that has carried the day on the Board of Supes and it seems in Bronson's office.
  
  We all knew that Pima County's boom couldn't last forever. As a candidate in 2004 I mentioned that water and open space together would rein in growth and that the County should plan more prudently for the future. Bronson did exactly the opposite. She tried to have her cake and eat it too, tremendously growing the County budget during the double-strength "boom" of new construction and rising valuations, and even claiming that she cut taxes. Yes, she voted for a decrease, but valuations were so high that it was a mere rate decrease.
  
  Party's over, new construction has come almost to a halt, valuations are down, and we're experiencing a budget shortfall. The county's voters couldn't bring themselves in 2004 to elect a candidate demanding fiscal responsibility, but that candidate was also 22 years old, new to the area, cast into the election at the 11th hour, working on a PhD, operating on a shoestring budget, and running at a time when the average voter thought the boom could last forever. Now that forever has come and gone, and that a more established candidate is in the race, I suspect that the voters will do what they should have done four and eight years ago.
  
  Brenner will be a good choice for the County. He believes that fiscal responsibility is the right thing to do and not merely something to do temporarily during lean times. Whereas Bronson merely has the support of the Democratic machine, Brenner has attracted endorsements from (maybe-Republican Supervisor) Ray Carroll and the Chamber of Commerce. He has no pretense to environmentalism but has substantially supported previous open-space measures. Moreover, his decidedly unBronsonlike position on the size and scope of governments means he need not act always in the interest of the development lobby. With Brenner on the Board of Supervisors, we can start talking seriously about out-of-control growth and ways to manage the water supply for the long term.
  
  Lower taxes, better policy, and fiscal restraint: what is there not to like? Sure, he's written for Human Events, but this is a local race, so who cares?
  
  In case you need a reminder, remember also that Bronson was a key architect of the Regional Transportation Plan and one of the chief election-integrity obstructionists, opposing her own party's records requests.
  
  
• U.S. Congress, District 7
  
  Does anyone remember the old Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror" wherein the Presidential candidates were human-eating "Space Mutants" Kang and Kodos or Reform Party candidate Ross Perot? That election didn't turn out so well, but my recommendation is that you not vote for a Space Mutant and instead cast your vote for Libertarian candidate Raymond Patrick Petrulsky.
  
  Who are the Space Mutants in this case? One is the incumbent, Raul Grijalva, a Democrat with a drinking problem who didn't distinguish himself on the school board, didn't distinguish himself on the Board of Supervisors, has done nothing in six years to distinguish himself in Congress but keeps getting elected because of a great skill at Chicago-style ethnic identity politics. When he does stand out it's for nuttery like a ban on scary-looking firearms or a national Cesar Chavez holiday. The other is perennial candidate Joe Sweeney, a clinically crazy man, on permanent disability, who operates an unaccredited "law school" and who is an avowed racist, one time calling Mexicans amateur Jews. He also introduced the term "genital drive" to the popular language. Watch and laugh.
  
  Petrulsky has been unimpressive, even for a Libertarian candidate. But when the major-party candidates are space creatures, vote for Perot.
  
  
• U.S. Congress, District 8.
  
  "Tim Bee" is Spanish for "pendejo. This is the man who held up SB 1214 in the state Senate, who is a principal in putting Prop 102 on the ballot, and who cut Tucson in half, for hours, for a private fundraiser. Incumbent Gabrielle Giffords, on the other hand, has been lackluster even for a first-term Congresswoman, unwilling or unable to come across as though she believes in much of anything and thus campaigning on her (fairly good) constituent services record. I know that Giffords does, at least privately, stand for things; let's give her a "kick" and get her to stand for things in Washington by casting votes for someone in the race merely to take a stand: Sierra Vista area coffee-shop owner Paul Davis.
  
  Davis's campaign is also unimpressive, even for a Libertarian, but with a folksy manner and a contemplative, modest approach to the issues, he's been a better candidate than Petrulsky. I was impressed by him in person, even offering to give him his first campaign contribution, which he wasn't set up to take at the time. The chances of him winning are minuscule, but in politics, one gets nothing by voting for the winner. This time around it's better to induce Giffords to show some backbone, or the Republicans to not nominate a certifiable jerk, by not falling into the "Vote against X" trap and instead voting for the Nice Guy who is closest to our position.
  
  If you must vote only for the short term, however, do vote for civil-libertarian Giffords over culture-warrior Bee.

Defeat the last acceptable form of gay-bashing: vote "no" on Proposition 102

It has become evident in the four years since Massachusetts began allowing same-sex couples to marry that the practice is harmless. Heterosexual couples are not splitting up because the gays are getting married. Both the institution of marriage and the nuclear family are as strong if not stronger than they were before the change.

Why, then, amend Arizona's constitution to effectively make Clause C of ARS 25-101, which prohibits marriage between persons of the same sex, a new, one-sentence Article 30? Two reasons present themselves: irrationality and confusion, or hatred. It is no longer acceptable to beat up homosexuals, call them names, or generally treat them nastily, not even in private life; prohibiting them to marry is the last way for louts and bigots to stick it to the gays. A great many of those supporting a Constitutional ban on gay marriage do it because it's the next best thing to mandating that there simply be no gays.

And then there are the confused. While in California last weekend I saw "Yes on Prop 8" sign-wavers waving pieces of posterboard with the slogan "Prop 8 is Religious Freedom". Gun book publisher Alan Korwin, in a recently e-mailed newsletter, said "the correct term is Holy Matrimony." In a similar vein, a correspondent, on learning of my position on this measure, e-mailed to ask "Do you believe churches should be required by law to marry all couples if legal marriages are performed at all on their private property?" The First Amendment to the US Constitution, and the corresponding provision of the Arizona Constitution, already prohibit the state to interfere in the marriage rites of religions. No amendment to the State constitution is needed to prevent the State from mandating that any religious organization marry homosexuals, just as none is required to prevent the State from mandating that Jewish temples marry Hindu couples. (Curiously, we do not hear the opposite complaint from these people, that the failure to recognize as civil marriage the religious marriage of e.g. homosexual Unitarian Universalist couples is an interference with religion.)

Confusion runs deeper, still. Many in the Ron Paul Mouse Army believe that the matter is mere Culture War and that gays can simply draw up a contract and be married. There is no possible private contract in our current legal order that carries with it the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Still others see this as an acceptable legislatively-sponsored compromise when compared to 2006's Proposition 107 initiative. Proposition 107, which would have forbid the State or any subdivision thereof to recognize both gay marriage and civil unions or domestic partnerships, was definitively defeated by the voters.

Unlike 2006's Proposition 107, Prop 102 leaves the "civil union" option open, but "civil unions" are but a second class "civil marriage". They are not portable between the states, they often (due to inertia) do not carry the same weight with employer-based insurance plans (yet another reason to move away from employer-based insurance!), they do not put homosexual couples on equal footing with heterosexuals for income tax purposes, nor for inheritance purposes, nor for immigration purposes. Civil unions and domestic partnerships can't even reliably prevent malicious outsiders from interfering with hospital visitation.

Even if we defeat Prop. 102, homosexual couples will still not be afforded equal rights in Arizona. But the defeat of Proposition 102 leaves the option open, for the next Legislature or some future, more humane Legislature to grant equal rights to homosexual couples. I strongly encourage you to vote it down and to advertise publicly, to your friends and co-workers, on your own 'blog, or on Facebook, that you are voting it down.

While you're at it, if you live in Congressional District 8, vote for one of the opponents of Tim Bee, a co-sponsor of this legislatively-referred constitutional amendment (LRCA). Incumbent Gabrielle Giffords is alright, but has shown that she is no Jim Kolbe. Coffee-shop owner and longshot Libertarian candidate Paul Davis could, on the other hand, fill Kolbe's shoes if given the chance, and deserves even a symbolic show of support.

The Friday Morning Phone Call

Friday, circa 9 AM, around the time I should be prying myself out of bed with a crowbar and getting to the lab (I tend to work into the evening), the phone rings.

"Hello, to whom am I speaking?", says the caller, and I reply:
"If you don't at least have a good guess, perhaps you shouldn't be calling this number."

Buzzz....click! He hangs up.

Ten minutes later, as I'm about to jump into the shower, it rings again.

"Hi, is this Bennett?", says someone sounding roughly the same as the first caller, timidly.

"Yes, what can I do for you?"

"You're the guy who wrote the letter in the Weekly (fourth item on the page) suggesting we call Tim Bee's campaign if we got stuck east of Swan."

"Yes. I have nothing to do with the Bee campaign, but I thought people should let them know how they feel."

"Oh. So you set them up, then."

"Yes."

"That's hilarious. I couldn't get home, and I was very upset, so I saw your letter and I called them up. The lady who answered gave me your number. I asked what it was for, then she screamed it at me again and hung up."


Take-away messages:
(1) I got under Tim Bee's staff's skin. Whether or not he got the point, I don't know. I'm still not going to vote for the pendejo until I get a check, and now, an apology.
(2) The Tucson Weekly staff may not always be classy (remember Tim Vanderpool's hit on Michael Badnarik?) but someone down there has a sense of humor.
(3) Tim Bee's staff is not above behavior verging legally on harassment. My number is publicly listed, yes, but I am not the person who can answer questions about your refund.

Call the Bee campaign, ask for compensation.

President Bush (spending the taxpayer dime) flew into Davis-Monthan AFB last night and drove up to the Catalina Foothills for a private fundraiser for the Tim Bee campaign.

Swan was blocked off from the base all the way up to Sunrise; dozens of police worked overtime to facilitate this. Hundreds of Tucsonans were stranded on one side of town or the other, unable to get home (perhaps to their children) or to work on time. To get home from the gym at Rincon High, I had to detour all the way to I-10 and Kolb.

If you were late to work or stuck and unable to get home last night or this morning due to the "security theater" surrounding a private fundraiser, call the Tim Bee campaign at 520-979-8667. Leave your name and address and ask them for a check compensating you for wasted gasoline and lost time.

While you have them on the line, ask them when they're going to reimburse Pima County and the City of Tucson for that police overtime.

Until I get my check, there's no chance I'll vote for Bee. If this is how he acts when a mere state legislator, just imagine the "Do You Know Who I Am" shenanigans he'll pull as a Congressman! What happened to the Republican ideal of no external costs and no transfer payments, of everyone paying his own way?

SB1214 update

According to a report sent out this morning by Senator Johnson's office, SB 1214, which would allow CCW permit holders to carry on public university grounds, will not receive its third reading today.

Ordinarily, this would mean that the bill is dead, since the House (Arizona has a bicameral legislature) must set its agenda soon. However, if the bill passes the Senate next week, it can still be sent to the house and given its fair hearing by amendment of the agenda. Knowing that SB1214 will be controversial, Senate President Tim Bee held the bill up to allow Senators time to draft amendments, rather than inserting it in the calendar with little more than a day's notice. The bill will likely receive its third reading next week.

A clarification from yesterday; Johnson's amendment to her own bill has not yet been formally adopted; it will be introduced and voted on at the third reading. We can expect it to pass, as it is probably the result of discussion with those like Paula Aboud who feel that CCW training is somewhat inadequate.

Whether it will mollify them enough remains to be seen. Regardless, don't expect a party-line vote on this one. Governor Napolitano and the UA Young Democrats aside, this is a Western state; many Democrats carry weapons and most, unlike Ken Cheuvront, aren't out-of-touch with gun rights advocates or ignorant of even the terms of the debate. Senate Minority Leader Marsha Arzberger probably carries her .38 Special illegally in the Senate building, and can thus sympathize with students, faculty, and staff who want to carry at, to, and from the universities. Rumor has it that Minority Whip Rebecca Rios is also sympathetic.