Another gem from Martel Firing

In the Arizona 'blogosphere, Martel Firing is probably the master of the succinct, witty post, and he's put up yet another gem. I'll give only a teaser, and a few remarks:

Volgy said (as accurately as I can remember), “Democrats hire garbage men and pay them well. Republicans contract out the job and the contractors pay the minimum possible. So yes, there is certainly a partisan difference.”

1. Volgy just inadvertently provided one of the best explanations for why urban Democrats--and I'm thinking back to days living in New Orleans and, before that, the Chicago area--are so corrupt and so prone to turning everything into a brother-in-law job. Is this why he's a professor of political science?
   
2. A Swiftian economic theory in which a the product of jobs, hours, and wages was maximized instead of utility would be hilarious. Perhaps only to me and two other people, but still, I'd buy that book!
   
3. Having been to San Francisco lately, I'm inclined to think that Martel means "stinks" literally.

Comically bad headline writing.

Thinking back to Thane's last post, I just saw the following on a newspaper rack:

Epic blizzards renew assault on East Coast.

Mixed metaphor fail. Will someone please explain to me why Tucson's better paper got stuck with the afternoon slot (sure death in today's market)?

Are we to take SB 1266 to be a sign of decency?

Schoolkids send naked cell-phone photos of themselves to each other. Given what is usually on one's mind--and what usually seems funny--at that age, does this come as a surprise to anyone?

What is surprising is the response. Bawdy jokes, (usually less-than-tasteful) drawings of sexual subjects, and "dirty" pictures passed around by schoolkids used to be the subject of adult scorn, at worst being confiscated, especially if the pictures are of a classmate, or resulting in issuance of a detention. Way, way back in the '90s this kind of silly, juvenile behavior was treated as just that. Nowadays, schoolteachers and parents of the "victims" want to get the law involved.

Under current Arizona law, sending of nude pictures of self or classmates by cell-phone or e-mail could be prosecuted as sexual exploitation of a minor, a class two felony. SB 1266 creates a new class 2 misdemeanor, "unlawful transmission or possession of explicit sexual material by a minor", to take the place of this. The title is a bit misleading; in addition to explicit sexual material, it also criminalizes the possession or transmission of photos of the genitalia, or of mere nude photos. As Alessandra Soler Meetze of ACLU-AZ remarked to the Arizona Republic, the bill criminalizes the digital equivalent of mooning.

From a certain perspective, SB 1266 looks like a stroke of decency from the legislature. "Let's not make the kids register as sex offenders; let's give them a slap on the wrist." However--Candy Andy Thomas's persecution prosecution for having a computer virus ultimate plea bargain with teenager Matt Bandy for passing around Playboy in school aside--Arizona prosecutors have been reluctant to charge teenagers with felonies for acting like kids due to the severity of the sanction.

Issuing Tasers to police made it more likely that they use force against suspects and detainees. Passage of SB 1266 will likely have the same effect of prosecutors. To quote the same Republic article:

Paul Ahler, executive director of the Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys' Advisory Council, said he didn't think any Arizona children have been charged with felonies for sexting under the current law.

However, children in other states have.

His organization, which includes representatives from the state's county attorneys, the state attorney general and municipal prosecutors, supports the bill.

Ahler said judges and law enforcement now are stuck with labeling a child a sex offender or finding some lesser charge that may not precisely fit the circumstances. In August, for example, Tucson police recommended a misdemeanor charge of using a telephone to offend, harass or intimidate for two 13-year-old boys suspected of sexting.

"Arizona prosecutors do not want to deal with this issue using child-pornography laws," Ahler said. "These are not pedophiles, not sex offenders. But they are doing something dangerous that needs to be stopped."

Susan Crawford with the Pinal County Attorney's Office said the current law has made officials reluctant to prosecute sexting at all.

She said the proposed legislation would show minors that sexting is serious, while at the same time allow for a more appropriate level of sentencing.

Since when is sending nude pictures dangerous?--and since when was the (cash-strapped) State of Arizona supposed to show kids that Behavior X is "serious". What does "X is serious" mean, anyway? "You'll get in trouble for it" or "It's harmful to nonconsenting parties?"

Southern Arizonans take note of the bill sponsor: Sen. Paton. The re-election of Gabby Giffords is looking better each week.

Of the import of article titles in newspapers

I live and work in Phoenix, Arizona. I follow news and commentary from Tucson. One complaint that I hear is that the Arizona Daily Star has an employee that chooses article titles that are biased against Barack Obama. That intrigued me enough to research the title assigned to a national column in my local newspaper.

Today's Charles Krauthammer's column in the Arizona Republic has the title "Common sense will win in U.S. - despite liberals". The title provided on TownHall.com of "The Great Peasant Revolt of 2010" doesn't seem appreciably different to me.

I found the article to be a very useful analysis of the folks currently called Liberals in the news and by 90% of the population.

HB 2148: Their culture war, on our time.

HB 2148 is not the terrible bill it has been made out to be. A reading of the full text shows that, contrary to some of the more strident arguments against its passage, it will not give preference to married strangers over single relatives.

Nevertheless, we must ask ourselves: Why change the adoption rules to give preference to married couples? Are so many people seeking to adopt children that many are being turned away? Can "we" (Arizona) afford to be this choosy?

I'm not confident that this bill will make it any more difficult for single people to adopt, nor that it will make it less likely that current wards of the state will be adopted. I am not confident that it will do these things. But I am reasonably confident that adoption of children by single people is not a current problem and that the legislature should concern itself with matters of greater substance, such as the budget, firearms law reform, or education. Legislators' "signaling" bills waste what is in many sense our time and increase the chances that meaningful fixes to real world problems be put off until next year.

And Hitler named that cute little puppy "Liebchen"

"Hugh Nuze" over at the Sonoran Alliance 'blog complains that the Arizona Republic "refuses to publish even one positive article about Arpaio, Thomas."

Reading further, it turns out that the Repug rejected one particular guest opinion--written like a letter to the editor! One poorly written guest opinion goes unpublished --> "they refuse to publish even one (that is to say, they refuse to publish any) positive article about Arpaio, Thomas."

Fail.

It looks like the whining tactics of the right-wing and libertarian Lysenkoists, the global warming denialists, have crept their way into everyday concerns. The world just got a bit more obnoxious.