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.
Showing posts with label Gabrielle Giffords. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gabrielle Giffords. Show all posts
Saturday, January 08, 2011
On the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords
UPDATE: The latest news has Giffords alive and responsive. No word on the extent of her incapacitation.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 reported what amount to signs of Gabby Giffords starting to take the lead as an advocate of fiscal restraint.
Then some jackass shot her. What was that supposed to accomplish?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 reported what amount to signs of Gabby Giffords starting to take the lead as an advocate of fiscal restraint.
Then some jackass shot her. What was that supposed to accomplish?
Friday, August 14, 2009
One on health care.
Associated Content put out a "call for content" asking for summaries, with commentary and a statement of my own position, of the positions taken on health care reform by my representatives in Congress; I wrote a few hundred words, which are now published to the site.
It isn't my best work, but it's a reasonable place to get started.
It isn't my best work, but it's a reasonable place to get started.
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Just in: Health care demonstration at Giffords town hall, tomorrow (Thursday) at 6 PM
Via Tom Jenney of the Arizona chapter of Americans for Prosperity:
Remember: the "progressives", including Obama's "Organizing for America", are trying very hard to get Giffords and others to adopt the far-left "single payer" position on health care, framing Obama's proposal as a moderate alternative. We need to pull back.
Note that, while boosting protester numbers has value, there's also value in not being part of "the mob", of participating normally and asking very, very tough questions. Such as: Why not just fix the market and offer vouchers to the needy?
I'm on the road, 'blogging right now from Palo Alto. As usual, if you are able to attend and would like to be a guest 'blogger, just send me an e-mail.
WHAT: "Casual Conversation" with Gabrielle Giffords
WHEN: Thursday, August 6, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
WHERE: La Placita, 110 S. Church Ave.
Parking info: The address is 110 South Church Avenue, at the intersection of Church and Broadway. Parking is available across the street (West of La Placita), off of the street "Jackson" in the five-story parking garage. Parking is reportedly free after 5 p.m. on Levels 3 and above.
Remember: the "progressives", including Obama's "Organizing for America", are trying very hard to get Giffords and others to adopt the far-left "single payer" position on health care, framing Obama's proposal as a moderate alternative. We need to pull back.
Note that, while boosting protester numbers has value, there's also value in not being part of "the mob", of participating normally and asking very, very tough questions. Such as: Why not just fix the market and offer vouchers to the needy?
I'm on the road, 'blogging right now from Palo Alto. As usual, if you are able to attend and would like to be a guest 'blogger, just send me an e-mail.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Throw Blue Dogs a bone: call Giffords, Mitchell, ask them to support market reform, trigger
A few weeks ago I recommended that readers living in Gabrielle Giffords's district phone her Tucson office and ask that she support the Blue Dogs's draft statements on health care.
The so-called "progressives" are lobbying hard to get the Blue Dogs to support Obama's plan. It's important that those of us who understand and support free-market healthcare reform lobby as hard. I'll repeat my suggestion with an update: If you live in either Giffords's (8th) or Harry Mitchell's (5th) district, phone your Congressman's office, express your thanks that he (that's the "he" that includes "she") is standing with the Blue Dogs on health care, and if asked, recommend
It won't hurt to call your representative if you live in other districts, but don't expect to get anywhere with Grijalva, a committed ideological proponent of single-payer.
Giffords's Tucson office can be reached at (520) 881-3588 . The phone number to Mitchell's Scottsdale office is (480) 946-2411. Be polite and upbeat. No need to tell them that Kalafut sent you, either--office staff are known to take messages more seriously if they are not part of any obvious campaign of duplication or repetition.
Put more recommendations and the responses you receive in the comments section.
The so-called "progressives" are lobbying hard to get the Blue Dogs to support Obama's plan. It's important that those of us who understand and support free-market healthcare reform lobby as hard. I'll repeat my suggestion with an update: If you live in either Giffords's (8th) or Harry Mitchell's (5th) district, phone your Congressman's office, express your thanks that he (that's the "he" that includes "she") is standing with the Blue Dogs on health care, and if asked, recommend
- That any bill with a "public option" be restricted by a "trigger" whereby government participation only occurs if private sector reform targets not be met
- For insurance to be decoupled from employment
- That the third-party payments problem be taken up in earnest, that overinsurance to the point of insulation be discouraged and HSAs encouraged.
It won't hurt to call your representative if you live in other districts, but don't expect to get anywhere with Grijalva, a committed ideological proponent of single-payer.
Giffords's Tucson office can be reached at (520) 881-3588 . The phone number to Mitchell's Scottsdale office is (480) 946-2411. Be polite and upbeat. No need to tell them that Kalafut sent you, either--office staff are known to take messages more seriously if they are not part of any obvious campaign of duplication or repetition.
Put more recommendations and the responses you receive in the comments section.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Gabrielle Giffords and health care. (Almost, but not quite.)
A short digression into Federal issues:
Without explanation, on this 'blog I've characterized 8th District congresswoman Gabrielle "Gabby" Giffords as a non-leftist moderate. I've taken a bit of "heat" about that backchannel from a few movement-libertarian readers.
In Democrat circles, two documents about health care reform have provoked outcry from the far left (the soi disant "progressives"):
The Blue Dog proposal for a "trigger" is quite interesting, and deserves support, as it would change the terms of the debate for the better. If the "public option" is treated as an experimental fallback in case of reform failure and not, as the "progressives" would have it, a goal in itself, dialog about how to fix the market will naturally follow. That is the discussion we should be having. What is broken, and how do we fix it?
Giffords is a Blue Dog Democrat and an honorary Congressional chairwoman in the Third Way organization. It's reasonably likely that she supports market reforms and a "trigger" for the public option. Yet someone (who will go unnamed) who attended her recent "town hall" meeting on health care reported at the most recent Pima County Libertarian Party meeting that she's a supporter of government-run universal health care.
That's funny. I don't recall hearing anything to that effect during either of her campaigns. And Michael Bryan, apparently back to 'blogging at the far left Blog for Arizona, isn't reading her that way. Libertarian Party or Ron Paul/Mises Institute libertarians, especially of a certain age or educational background, have a peculiar difficulty listening to and understanding people from anywhere else on the political spectrum. (Or even people who largely agree: I've lost count of the number of times old-time or autodidact LP libertarians have taken me to be a "socialist"!)
They ought to slow down and quit concluding that anyone who doesn't speak their code-words is a left-wing extremist. Republicans, too, need to learn to take her for what she is. Building a winning coalition for real health care reform is going to be difficult; writing off Giffords as being solidly on the other side is incorrect and strategically foolish. The "progressives" are trying very hard to convince her and her fellows that only a "no-trigger" public option is acceptable; those of us who prefer fixing the market to destroying the market need to keep her in our camp. Voicing our support for the Blue Dogs' proposed conditions for a public option is a start. If you live in the 8th District, give her office a call at (520) 881-3588 (Metro Tucson), (520) 459-3115 (Cochise County), or (202) 225-2542 (Washington DC).
Without explanation, on this 'blog I've characterized 8th District congresswoman Gabrielle "Gabby" Giffords as a non-leftist moderate. I've taken a bit of "heat" about that backchannel from a few movement-libertarian readers.
In Democrat circles, two documents about health care reform have provoked outcry from the far left (the soi disant "progressives"):
- A leaked draft memorandum from the >Third Way organization recommending that any "public option"--that's the term now being used on the Left for a government-run health insurance (or insulation) scheme--compete on a level playing field with private insurance and come with a sunset provision. This is still a draft, and not yet an official Third Way position, but we shouldn't expect the final product to be different in spirit.
- A statement by the "Blue Dog Coalition" caucus recommending, among other things, that the "public option" be defecit-neutral, compete on equal footing with private schemes, and only be offered if "triggered" by a failure of market reform.
The Blue Dog proposal for a "trigger" is quite interesting, and deserves support, as it would change the terms of the debate for the better. If the "public option" is treated as an experimental fallback in case of reform failure and not, as the "progressives" would have it, a goal in itself, dialog about how to fix the market will naturally follow. That is the discussion we should be having. What is broken, and how do we fix it?
Giffords is a Blue Dog Democrat and an honorary Congressional chairwoman in the Third Way organization. It's reasonably likely that she supports market reforms and a "trigger" for the public option. Yet someone (who will go unnamed) who attended her recent "town hall" meeting on health care reported at the most recent Pima County Libertarian Party meeting that she's a supporter of government-run universal health care.
That's funny. I don't recall hearing anything to that effect during either of her campaigns. And Michael Bryan, apparently back to 'blogging at the far left Blog for Arizona, isn't reading her that way. Libertarian Party or Ron Paul/Mises Institute libertarians, especially of a certain age or educational background, have a peculiar difficulty listening to and understanding people from anywhere else on the political spectrum. (Or even people who largely agree: I've lost count of the number of times old-time or autodidact LP libertarians have taken me to be a "socialist"!)
They ought to slow down and quit concluding that anyone who doesn't speak their code-words is a left-wing extremist. Republicans, too, need to learn to take her for what she is. Building a winning coalition for real health care reform is going to be difficult; writing off Giffords as being solidly on the other side is incorrect and strategically foolish. The "progressives" are trying very hard to convince her and her fellows that only a "no-trigger" public option is acceptable; those of us who prefer fixing the market to destroying the market need to keep her in our camp. Voicing our support for the Blue Dogs' proposed conditions for a public option is a start. If you live in the 8th District, give her office a call at (520) 881-3588 (Metro Tucson), (520) 459-3115 (Cochise County), or (202) 225-2542 (Washington DC).
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Health Care "Town Hall" with Rep. Gabrielle Giffords
Rep. "Gabby" Giffords from the Eighth Congressional District is holding a "Town Hall" meeting on the topic of health care reform on Tuesday, May 26, 2009, from 6:00 - 8:00 p.m. at Sahuaro High School Auditorium, 545 N. Camino Seco.
If you think you will attend, her office is requesting a response by May 21 to 520-881-3588.
Giffords is no free-marketeer but in my experience isn't a leftist ideologue, either. It may be worth readers' while to speak out in favor of market reforms and against crowd-out and "soft rationing". Cameras may be there. I don't know.
Whether or not I'll be there myself is a toss-up; those who do attend are welcome to guest post about it here. Send me an e-mail if interested.
If you think you will attend, her office is requesting a response by May 21 to 520-881-3588.
Giffords is no free-marketeer but in my experience isn't a leftist ideologue, either. It may be worth readers' while to speak out in favor of market reforms and against crowd-out and "soft rationing". Cameras may be there. I don't know.
Whether or not I'll be there myself is a toss-up; those who do attend are welcome to guest post about it here. Send me an e-mail if interested.
Monday, November 03, 2008
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.
Friday, May 25, 2007
An idiot in the AG's office, and how Arizona's Congressional delegation voted on HR 1252
Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard has, infamously flaunted his ignorance regarding the economic mechanisms setting gas prices.
To quote a sample:
Yes, avoiding being pumped dry is what replacement-cost pricing is all about. If you could undercut another retailer and be sustainably flooded with customers--or at least get more--you would. That's the process in effect when gas prices "come down like a feather." Apparently Goddard has yet to hear of "competition".
Read the rest. It's funny in a sick way, and stands as evidence that the man doesn't have either the brains or the knowledge to be a responsible Attorney General. Ignorance-based prosecutions are as intolerable as malicious ones.
Arizona's House delegation had the opportunity earlier this week to show whether or not they, unlike Goddard, get it, and whether or not they'd vote on something either pointless or blatantly unconstitutional for the sake of political posturing. Here's how they voted on HR 1252:
Aye AZ-1 Renzi, Rick [R]
Nay AZ-2 Franks, Trent [R]
Nay AZ-3 Shadegg, John [R]
Aye AZ-4 Pastor, Edward [D]
Aye AZ-5 Mitchell, Harry [D]
Nay AZ-6 Flake, Jeff [R]
Aye AZ-7 Grijalva, Raul [D]
Aye AZ-8 Giffords, Gabrielle [D]
Flake's "Nay" is predictable, as are the ayes of Grijalva and Giffords.
I'll throw in the first dollar for a collection to send each "Aye" voter a copy of Gwartney et al's Common Sense Economics, preferably by some postal method involving a whack on the head.
To quote a sample:
Gasoline retailers and their trade associations claim that gasoline stations must immediately raise their prices in response to a threatened supply disruption because they must raise enough money to pay for their next shipment of potentially higher priced fuel. They call this arbitrary and speculative behavior “replacement cost” pricing. Whatever the reason, gasoline retailers actually seemed to be competing to raise prices during the Katrina episode. I personally observed that as soon as one station posted higher prices, others in the area quickly matched it. To do otherwise, retailers told my Office, would be to risk being overrun by customers and pumped dry.
Yes, avoiding being pumped dry is what replacement-cost pricing is all about. If you could undercut another retailer and be sustainably flooded with customers--or at least get more--you would. That's the process in effect when gas prices "come down like a feather." Apparently Goddard has yet to hear of "competition".
Read the rest. It's funny in a sick way, and stands as evidence that the man doesn't have either the brains or the knowledge to be a responsible Attorney General. Ignorance-based prosecutions are as intolerable as malicious ones.
Arizona's House delegation had the opportunity earlier this week to show whether or not they, unlike Goddard, get it, and whether or not they'd vote on something either pointless or blatantly unconstitutional for the sake of political posturing. Here's how they voted on HR 1252:
Aye AZ-1 Renzi, Rick [R]
Nay AZ-2 Franks, Trent [R]
Nay AZ-3 Shadegg, John [R]
Aye AZ-4 Pastor, Edward [D]
Aye AZ-5 Mitchell, Harry [D]
Nay AZ-6 Flake, Jeff [R]
Aye AZ-7 Grijalva, Raul [D]
Aye AZ-8 Giffords, Gabrielle [D]
Flake's "Nay" is predictable, as are the ayes of Grijalva and Giffords.
I'll throw in the first dollar for a collection to send each "Aye" voter a copy of Gwartney et al's Common Sense Economics, preferably by some postal method involving a whack on the head.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
