A Tempe-area homeless man maintains a set of Tripod webpages (what a throwback!) in a 'bloglike fashion, that are very much worth reading. From 2003 until 2008, he documented his experiences on Homeless in Arizona, and for unknown reasons switched in 2009 to a different URL. There's much to learn, both about the homeless way of life per se and the many little ways in which local governments "kick" the down-and-out.
I know the author, a probable schizophrenic and beneath the paranoia, erraticness, and abnormal affect a Nice Guy, but did not realize until recently that he's homeless. As he seems very uncomfortable letting people know this--and won't acknowledge the matter when I bring it up--and as he's somewhat of a public figure, I won't name him here. He is a highly skilled programmer, so if anyone would like to offer him a computer "gig" of sorts I'll do my best to put him in touch.
If he takes my advice and migrates to Blogger or Wordpress, I'll add him to the 'blogroll. Until then, just follow the links above.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Black Sheep Cave, Tucson Mountains
There aren't many places in the U.S.A. where anyone can simply walk up to a sensitive archaeological site, but no matter where you live in Arizona, chances are high that one is nearby. (There also aren't many places where the Border Patrol simply runs over sensitive archaeological sites as they've done to Santa Ana del Chiquiburitac; accessibility has its drawbacks.)
Black Sheep Cave, a little "hole" in the Tucson Mountains, may not tell us much about the quotidian life of the contact-era Native Americans--probably O'Odham--who drew on its walls, but it is certainly visually impressive. And it's a short walk from a few well-known trails. No, I won't post directions on the Internet, but I will show you photos.
Monday, June 08, 2009
Anti-discrimination Action Alert: Call or comment in favor of SCR 1031
The Arizona Senate is moving in high speed; there is still time for both progress and mischief and the senators are trying to squeeze in as much of both as possible before the session ends. In the "progress" category is a legislatively referred constitutional amendment (LRCA), SCR 1031, that would totally forbid the state to discriminate against or grant preferential to anyone in hiring, contracting, or univerity admisions.
Specifically, if sent to and approved by the voters, it would add a Section 36 to Article II of the Arizona Constitution reading
That sort of fundamentally equal treatment should be something we can all support, but the measure, just like the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative that never quite materialized in 2008, has its opponents, who claim that affirmative action programs prevent racial 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.
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!) But Arizona's preference programs, documented in a 2007 Goldwater Institute whitepaper, 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, but it's more reasonable to call them dodgy attempts to effect, in a roundabout way, group rights and ethnic pillarization. Not so dodgy as New Haven firefighter promotions, but dodgy nonetheless.
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.
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.
The moral authority of preference programs expired decades ago. Light up the switchboards tomorrow, calling members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, asking them to move SCR 1031 along in the process. If you are signed up for the ALIS/Request to Speak system, leave a comment or request to speak. And it wouldn't hurt to leave a message for Senate President Thayer Verschoor saying that although LRCAs are not usually brought to a vote in off-years, the matter of racial discrimination is important enought that SCR 1031 ought to at least receive a first reading.
To quote native Arizonan and retired Supreme Court Justice O'Connor's majority opinion in Grutter v Bollinger:
Specifically, if sent to and approved by the voters, it would add a Section 36 to Article II of the Arizona Constitution reading
This state shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to 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.
That sort of fundamentally equal treatment should be something we can all support, but the measure, just like the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative that never quite materialized in 2008, has its opponents, who claim that affirmative action programs prevent racial 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.
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!) But Arizona's preference programs, documented in a 2007 Goldwater Institute whitepaper, 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, but it's more reasonable to call them dodgy attempts to effect, in a roundabout way, group rights and ethnic pillarization. Not so dodgy as New Haven firefighter promotions, but dodgy nonetheless.
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.
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.
The moral authority of preference programs expired decades ago. Light up the switchboards tomorrow, calling members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, asking them to move SCR 1031 along in the process. If you are signed up for the ALIS/Request to Speak system, leave a comment or request to speak. And it wouldn't hurt to leave a message for Senate President Thayer Verschoor saying that although LRCAs are not usually brought to a vote in off-years, the matter of racial discrimination is important enought that SCR 1031 ought to at least receive a first reading.
To quote native Arizonan and retired Supreme Court Justice O'Connor's majority opinion in Grutter v Bollinger:
[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.Arizona has established no sunset or periodic review for its discriminatory programs. With the state Senate's help, let's sunset them ourselves in November 2009 or 2010.
School choice update: Winn v Hibbs, now Winn v Garriott, remanded to district court.
I'm a few months late in reporting this one, but as the matter has been proceeding at a snail's pace, it doesn't matter.
The case formerly known as Winn et al v Hibbs et al, now known as Winn et al v Garriott et al, a challenge to Arizona's dollar-for-dollar tax credit for donations to school tuition organizations (STOs), charities that pay some or all of multiple students' private school tuition fees, has taken quite the roundabout path through the courts. Back in 2004 it was before the (U.S.) Supreme Court, not (yet) to address the First Amendment concern, but rather to decide whether or not the Tax Injunction Act precludes Federal jurisdiction in the matter.
It was subsequently dismissed by the district court for failure to state a claim de novo, taken to the appeals court again, and has now been remanded to the district court. The Ninth Circuit panel ruled that the Zelman v Simmons-Harris decision does not preclude a First Amendment challenge to the STO scheme because the nature of the private choice involved is different than that of the programs upheld in Zelman.
Supposing that the district court, or the 9th Circuit again, or SCOTUS finds for the plaintiffs, the 9th circuit's remand order points the way to a solution: replace the STO scheme with an individual tax credit for anyone who pays any portion of a particular child's tuition fee. That would be a better solution, too, addressing the double-payments market failure per se.
I still doubt the bona fides of the First Amendment claim. The notion that a tax relief program with clear secular purpose and violates the Establishment Clause because donors receiving tax relief chose too often to donate to organizations with religious organizations is absurd. Establishment is an act of government, not of the people.
The case formerly known as Winn et al v Hibbs et al, now known as Winn et al v Garriott et al, a challenge to Arizona's dollar-for-dollar tax credit for donations to school tuition organizations (STOs), charities that pay some or all of multiple students' private school tuition fees, has taken quite the roundabout path through the courts. Back in 2004 it was before the (U.S.) Supreme Court, not (yet) to address the First Amendment concern, but rather to decide whether or not the Tax Injunction Act precludes Federal jurisdiction in the matter.
It was subsequently dismissed by the district court for failure to state a claim de novo, taken to the appeals court again, and has now been remanded to the district court. The Ninth Circuit panel ruled that the Zelman v Simmons-Harris decision does not preclude a First Amendment challenge to the STO scheme because the nature of the private choice involved is different than that of the programs upheld in Zelman.
Supposing that the district court, or the 9th Circuit again, or SCOTUS finds for the plaintiffs, the 9th circuit's remand order points the way to a solution: replace the STO scheme with an individual tax credit for anyone who pays any portion of a particular child's tuition fee. That would be a better solution, too, addressing the double-payments market failure per se.
I still doubt the bona fides of the First Amendment claim. The notion that a tax relief program with clear secular purpose and violates the Establishment Clause because donors receiving tax relief chose too often to donate to organizations with religious organizations is absurd. Establishment is an act of government, not of the people.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Changes at Goldwater State
A heavy workload and a cut to the hand that rendered typing painful together caused an un-announced 'blogging break. Posting will still be light for another few weeks, but I'm "back" as of right now. Thank you for your patience.
As promised, a few changes are happening at Goldwater State. One of the 'blogs more serious deficiencies was sparse coverage of Maricopa County happenings. I'll now be joined by a co-'blogger, Kim Ruff, who resides in the Phoenix area; the almost two thirds of readers who live in the Phoenix area will see increased local news and commentary in addition to a fresh perspective on statewide affairs. (Who wants to hear from a scientist all the time, anyway?) I'll let Kim introduce herself in her own post.
An e-mail will go out to roughly two dozen potential "regular" guest 'bloggers by 30 June 2009. If you're interested in being an occasional commentator on this site, you don't have to wait for this; sending me a backchannel e-mail will do. My aim is to make Goldwater State more conversational by the time I leave the state, and to be able to hand it over to two or three regular co-'bloggers.
Fall will bring a more exciting development, which I can't say too much about yet. When it happens, you'll notice, right away.
As promised, a few changes are happening at Goldwater State. One of the 'blogs more serious deficiencies was sparse coverage of Maricopa County happenings. I'll now be joined by a co-'blogger, Kim Ruff, who resides in the Phoenix area; the almost two thirds of readers who live in the Phoenix area will see increased local news and commentary in addition to a fresh perspective on statewide affairs. (Who wants to hear from a scientist all the time, anyway?) I'll let Kim introduce herself in her own post.
An e-mail will go out to roughly two dozen potential "regular" guest 'bloggers by 30 June 2009. If you're interested in being an occasional commentator on this site, you don't have to wait for this; sending me a backchannel e-mail will do. My aim is to make Goldwater State more conversational by the time I leave the state, and to be able to hand it over to two or three regular co-'bloggers.
Fall will bring a more exciting development, which I can't say too much about yet. When it happens, you'll notice, right away.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Tonight: Late night legislative session on budget.
From legislative staffer and former Karen Johnson aide Karen Winfield:
There will be a rare late night session of the Arizona State Senatetonight (Wednesday) on the state budget for Fiscal Year 2010. You canwatch live on the internet at:
www.azleg.gov
-- Left-hand column, click "Live proceedings"
-- When the TV screen comes up, select Senate Floor
It is scheduled for sometime after the Caucus, which will NOT betelevised. Caucus is tentatively scheduled to begin at 8 p.m. You'll have to keep checking 'til the floor hearing starts.
You could also try watching it on Cox Cable TV (Channel 123). If they televise it live, it will show at the same time as the internet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
