|
Arizona's First Political Blog
E-mail Anonymous Mike at zonitics4-at-yahoo.com By Anonymous Mike, pseudonymously.
Archives
Links
Center
War Coverage
|
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Personal Thoughts... ... on personal things. Obama can wait until tomorrow I'm still in shock that the Phillies won the World Series. I thought when we won Game 1, that was cruel in raising our expectations. When we went up 3-1, I prepared myself for bitter disappointment. When Game 5 was suspended, I thought that this was the turning of the tide, that the Rays would take the 2-day break and the removal of Hamels, and then charge back to win that game and then the next 2. They didn't and we won. I cannot believe it. It probably won't hit me until March. I'll readily admit I'm a sports bigamist when it come to baseball (Remember the NBA is dead to me, the Cardinals much like the frogurt is also cursed, and I'm meh about the Coyotes.) The difference between the D'backs as opposed to Eagles or Phillies is that when the former is getting blown out of a game, I get to the point where I cannot stand it and shut the TV off because after all life is too short to punish oneself over a bunch of professional athletes. However when a Philly sports team is doing poorly, I will watch the game to the bitter end. Why? I am not exactly sure but so far I've narrowed it down to either it's doing penance for past sins or because to be miserable watching Philly sports is the role of life to which I'm born. When I was a wee lad, Philly sports teams rocked; heck once all 4 teams made their respective finals over a 12-month period. Now I understand that the early success was simply the necessary prelude to a lifetime of disappointment. Look I'm not complaining, I'm just explaining. Second... For reasons far too complex to go into here, my kids won't be trick or treating this year. Therefore I won't be able to tax their Halloween candy as in past years. Which is a shame because I was going to use this year's candy haul to demonstrate the tax policies of the respective presidential candidates... whatever justification is need to get at the Milky Ways. Wednesday, October 29, 2008
The Wages of Betrayal Got some interesting e-mail regarding the end of my previous post when I remarked on those Palin staffers who have been leaking disparging remarksabout their boss to the press. I said people should be blackballed but after reading some e-mail and thinking about it, I think I have been too harsh. After all ripping on your previous employer for your personal profit is widespread, so far be it for me to pound on some staffers. Take Scott McClellan, a man whose entire national stature, his entire ability to have a book published is due to the fact that he worked for President Bush. So what does he do? He writes a book ripping the man down and earns himself a tidy sum of money doing it. At least Mr. McClellan wasn't earning the King's shilling at the time of his betrayal which is more than I can say for the Palin staffers. Not only are they on the payroll but their comments do nothing to help the cause for which they are hired. They are betraying not only the people they work for but they are betraying their paycheck. So perhaps blackballing is too lenient for these people, but any punishment too harsh if we just focus on these most recent miscreants. If Obama is elected, he'll face the same phenomena so let's work on creating a bipartisan solution. Heck let's have a blue ribbon commission to ratify my suggested solution. Every few years, let's line up those who have been found guilty of betrayal and have them draw lots. Those who draw the good ones will be forced to live in internal exile, far from the corridors of power, where they can no longer ply their trade craft for anything larger than a campaign for the PTA. There they can live out their lives and die in oblivion, trying to see how much they can stretch that last paycheck or book advance... Remember those are the good lots, I'm still thinking what to do with those who draw the bad lots... maybe they can fight each other to the death in cage matches dressed up like Mel Gibson in Thunderdome with Donna Brazile dressed up like Tina Turner overseeing the festivities. Yeah that'll work, just as long as their demise will serve as an example to others. Why Obama Can Win I'm going to try something here... spend a few days trying to outline the case for an Obama win and then try to say why you shouldn't vote for him. I was going to try and make the case for voting for Obama today and then make the case against him tomorrow, but I found I just couldn't do the former. So I thought I would make the case of why I think he can or will win. I want to be clear that I'm looking at this in the continuum of past elections, I'm not going to say people are going to vote for Obama because they cannot stand the religious wing-nuts in the Republican Party because I have been hearing that argument for several election cycles now. The same with the idea of jacking up tax rates in order to redistribute the dough to others; if that's what's attracting you now then please don't try and tell me you voted for Bush in 2004. The question is why the people who voted for the Bush the past few elections will vote for Obama this time around 1) Change. Let's face it times are tough. Not only is the economy sliding toward or in recession and the market tanking, but we have been bombarded with stories for the past 7 years on how our nation is on the wrong course. Guantanamo, the Iraq War, everyone loathes America, the response to Katrina.... all very depressing. Why not allow the other team a crack at it? Plus not only are the Republicans associated with those messes through Bush, but they look exhausted. Give the other guys a shot and for all that McCain does to try and run away from Bush, he's still a Republican. In retrospect, perhaps Cheney should have run for president just so the eventual nominee could have beat him and put the anchor weight of the Bush Administration to bed. 2) Obama looks the part. I thought the debates were a potential make-or-break moment for Obama because the man was awful whenever he got off the teleprompter during the primaries. Instead the man looked and sounded like he knew what he was doing, he passed the plausibility test in a way that say.... Dukakis... never did. 3) The Republicans are tired and divided. Sort of leads back to #1, but the Republicans have the scent of death around them in a way I haven't seen since H.W. in 1992. I think it goes back in part to the base's hostility toward Bush with the Harriet Meiers pick in 2005 and the amnesty fiasco with the high spending boondoggles of the past 7 years. Then to compound it, McCain of all people was the one to get the nomination; I think quite a few GOPers talked themselves into liking McCain but saw him more as the anti-Obama than as a man they could rally around. The recent spectacle of members of Palin's staff (who were picked for her by the McCain campaign) leaking how much they hate her to the press? Just indicative of the low morale and inability to concentrate. Btw... all those people who are leaking should be identified and black-balled from any future work in the Republican Party, more on that in another post. 4) People are tired and want to be united. The average American wants a government that works. We have had a good 11 years of solid partisan warfare and I think people want that to end and would be willing to give the keys to a Democratic Washington to see how it would work. You might think that odd given the approval rating of the Democratic Congress but there's no way they are giving Congress back to the Republicans. The other advantage is that if you take the partisan blinders off and tee-up the top Obama speeches on the DVD, you do feel good about yourself and the country in a very non-specific sort of way. People do want hope and they do want change and Obama promises that, in a vague sort of way, in abundance. 5) Obama will make people feel good about picking him. Not only does he look and sound plausible (see Dukakis and Quayle), but people seem to read into him what they want. Not only hope and change, but for Christopher Buckley it was that Obama's favorite philosopher is Niebuhr. For David Brooks it was his post-partisan, ruthless predilection for throwing people under the bus. For Chris Matthews it was because it shot a tingle up his leg. I also don't discount the fact that people want, desperately want, to vote for a black man for the nation's highest office. If Obama wins Tuesday it will be the most historic moment in an already historic election and believe me that counts for something Note I didn't say much about specific policies. That's for tomorrow Monday, October 27, 2008
Obama as My President You take a week off from discussing the Election and things are good. So let's get the final week of the race off to a good start with a tone-setter. If Obama wins next week, he will be my president. No "in spite of Note that doesn't mean those things I just listed aren't problems and that they shouldn't be addressed in the context of fixing them and shooting some of the guilty. It just means that elections and civic tone are too important for some of the nonsense that we've seen for the past 8 years. Let me give you an analogy from your high school sports days, After the game, win or lose, what did you do? You shook the other team's hands and told them good game. Maybe you didn't mean it, maybe you thought they cheated or the ref was a homer for the other team, but being a good sport demands you go through the ritual. You lost, they won, and you get to think about it during that long, quiet bus ride home. The rules of the game not only demand a winner and a loser, but also demands the loser accept the verdict (Yes I know the construction of that last sentence has "rules" that are "demanding" and that's exactly how I meant it in a Stoic, logos-sort of way. So take your small-world rules of English grammar and stuff it) During the past 8 years I have heard some of the most vile invective coming from some of this nation's most highly educated citizens regarding the legitimacy of the Bush Administration. Very public stuff, very nasty. I have ended friendships because of those comments, because these people have been transformed by that hate into something I no longer recognize. The thing is speech in this country may be free, but it isn't without consequence. You cannot get up and say democracy has been subverted without weakening the very foundations on which our system rests. You not only weaken faith in that system but you give justification to those who wish to use every means necessary to get their way - witness the assassination fantasies over the past 8 years. So I'm not going down that same rat hole. I'll say the same thing to Obama as I did to the Democrats after they won Congress 2006... congratulations. If he is elected and comes to my door, I'll shake his hand and wish him and his family well. When he goes overseas, I hope people here understand that while they may not respect the man they should respect the office and that we don't cut our presidents down when they're off in the world on company business. We're better than that. We're better than they have been for the past 8 years. That doesn't mean rolling over and playing dead for 4 years, far from it. I have a deep dread of what may happen but I for the time being I will wait and watch and let him make the first move. I will base my criticism on substantive grounds and I hope other Republicans do as well, after all there is thing called a loyal opposition. I'll discuss some of that later in the week. For now if Obama wins I'll be down at Sonoran Brewing Company and for any Demopcrat who comes up... I'll buy them beer. As for Republicans, you'll have to buy your own because my credit card won't be able to cover any tab high enough to drown our sorrows. Wednesday, October 22, 2008
House of Pain "Presidential Campaign-Free Week" continues... Thoughts on the World Series tonight. We can do match-ups or who has the better pitching staff or experience or... we can just look at karma. I think karma can explain alot about sports. Fans certainly think so, they wear lucky jerseys or what not to games or have particular pre-game rituals thinking if they wear cheese ont heir heads their team will win. Generally they are right. Let's look at the Red Sox. By selling the game's greatest player to the Yankees, they violated karma and earned themselves 80+ years in purgatory. To earn themselves back in good graces and to start winning themselves some World Series titles, they had to come back from 3-0 against theose Yankees in 2004. Now they're a dynasty or were until ran into Tampa Bay. Look at the Arizona Cardinals. A while back, in the blown-away archives "The Frogurt is also Cursed," I stated that with the new stadium and high expectations that the Arizona Cardinals would only bring us pain because they are owned by the Bidwells. Has my theory been proven wrong? Look at the Cubs. For decades they have milked the "lovable loser" motif and sold Wrigley as a place to go catch some rays and drink beer ( a great place for both.) Now in the last few years they have tried to build a decent team, spending good money on payroll, decent farm system... all it's earned them consecutive first round sweeps. Dodgers... great team for decades. What have they done since the O'Malley's sold the team? I could go on. So based on karma, who can we expect to win? On one hand we have Tampa Bay which plays in one of the most hideous stadium in all of professional sports. The funny thing the region has used its attractive demographics and that same hideous stadium to position itself as a bargaining chip so other teams could choke stadium deals out of their own cities. It was amusing watching the Rays play the White Sox because the ChiSox used the Tampa Bay area to extort their own hideous stadium out of their local taxpayers. Also the Rays have been a cosmic joke of a franchise. For years they built a roster out of retreads and fading stars (Vinny Castilla? Jose Canseco?) and traded good young talent for a bag of beans (Bobby Abreu for Kevin Stocker.) Yeah our D'backs are their expansion twins and we had those awful purple uniforms but we also have a Series ring and 4 division titles; in fact it took so long for the Rays to have a winning season that the D'backs built one contender, tore it down, and have built another in all the same time. So now after all these years, Tampa was so bad that my kids's Little League team this year was the Devil Rays because the coach said everyone wants the names of the good or popular teams like the Cubs or Yankees, why not throw a little love to the pereneial losers? So finally this year it comes together with a good young team, built the right way, and not only do they enjoy their first winning season but get to go to the World Series in the same year. Pah! Tampa Bay has been in the league for 11 seasons, the Phillies have been for 129 seasons. They have the most losses of any team in baseball, passing 10,000 last year. It's a city rich with disappointment and bitterness, after all people leave Philly all the time for Tampa, nobody is ever moving the other way. This is a city that suffered through the Eric Lindros-era, watched the Eagles lose three straight NFC championship games only to gag against the Patriots int he Super Bowl, and trade Charles Barkley for a bag of stale donuts. Did I mention I grew up in the era and a lifelong fan of all Philly sports? The Phillies are well-constructed. Good pitching, an outstanding bullpen, and one heck of an infield. Good solid citizens, brought up through the system, that has not only paid its dues the last few years but did our nation a service by stopping the Mets from reaching the playoffs. This is a team whose time is now, in fact the whole city is due. Justice damnds. So based on the karmic factor, who's going to win? The Rays in 5. Philly is cursed man, I told you I grew up there. Monday, October 20, 2008
The Glint of Money Earlier in the year, I wrote about Solana; the large solar thermal energy plant that APS has partnered to build out by Gila Bend. Solana electricity is forecast to cost about 40% more than electricity from traditional sources. The reason Solana would be profitable was that APS fully expects some sort of carbon regulation regime to be implemented by Washington which would even the cost score between Solana and traditional sources. There is a thin line between prudent corporate planning for future government regulation and becoming a stakeholder in government regulation. Solana was planned and pushed during times when the economy was still growing and energy prices climbing; recent months have reminded us that neither of those two phenomena are permanent and so that there is no guarantee by the time Solana is operational that American voters and consumers would be willing to pay an environmental premium on energy. So if carbon regulation is undermined what happens to Solana? APS is commited to buying Solana energy for the next 30 years; it would be another financial blackhole for an already troubled company. With projects like Solana, wouldn't APS have a vested interest in government regulation of carbon? Friday, October 17, 2008
Vote for Obama or the Country Gets It Man did I step in it yesterday. I rarely engage in political discussions with strangers. That doesn't mean, however, they won't discuss politics with me. One day while buying milk, I was accosted by a stranger. I had paused in front of the cooler that held the 2% since I was trying to remember what my wife had asked me to do after I left the store when someone mistaking my pause for growing anger exclaimed to me that he agreed with my outrage over Bush and rising milk prices. Sigh Yesterday at the gym, the woman on the bike next to me was discussing politics with two people on the other side of the room. Given the distance between the parties, the discussion had to be held at a volume loud enough to include everyone in the room. I had to listen to her litany of complaints about the McCain campaign, but I leave each to their own; until she said this: "The only way McCain can win is if the racists vote for him" Sorry I wasn't going to let that stand because what got me about the woman's comment was its implicit corollary, "The only way Obama can lose is because of his race." The racial aspect of the Obama candidacy has always been two-sided. On one hand it offers voters a chance to be part of a truly historical moment, to put a member of an oppressed minority group in the White House and to help somewhat heal the ongoing racial divide in this country. On the other hand, it always offered the danger of increased racial animosity if the Obama candidacy was rejected. Certainly you could argue a man with a very thin resume, suspcious past associations, and a set of policies which looks to be to the left of McGovern could be rejected for the normal reasons. However in post-segregation America, the issues of race and racism exist in the implicit and in the subconscious, in the taboo, and political correctness. No matter what reasons people would have for not voting for Obama, the danger was that race would be hauled out as one of the reasons. You have already started to see that occur with the peieces from the AP calling attacks on the Ayers-Obama connection "racially-tinged," uncorrobroated news reportsthat people at McCain-Palin rallies have been yelling "kill him" in regard to Obama and we have one of the living icons of the Civil Rights Movement liken John McCain to George Wallace. Yowsers. Look it's been a roller coaster 8 years. We have had 9/11, concern about coitnuing terorist or even WMD attacks on American soil, and public concern about energy coupled with looming environmental catastrophe with a dash of fear driven by the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. On top of that we have a sharp and growing blue/red divide within this country with people seeing the other side as just not wrong, but evil and corrupt. Put it altogether and we've spent the past 8 years weakening the foundations of our society and our Republic. Back to the woman in the gym... I said very quietly and firmly "You cannot say that because what you are stating is that if McCain wins the White House, it would be racists who put him there and who wants to support a man like that? We would live in a country so divided and full of hatred that it would make the past 8 years look like a love-in." Well that went over like a turd in the punch bowl but you know what? Enough is enough. Thursday, October 16, 2008
Debate Nights Let's face it, modern presidential debates are not designed to re-enact the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858. Don't think so? Go back to the 1960 debate when "who won the debate" depended on the medium; if you listened on the radio it was Nixon, if you watched on TV it was Kennedy. These are essentially political beauty shows where we get a chance to see both candidates on the same stage. Nice side-by-side comparison. Who the talking heads doing instant analysis at the end of the debate say who "wins" depends not on a scoring system or issues. Nope, they talk about who looked better or who connected better or who didn't meet expectations. Whose expectations? Well the expectations of those who talk on TV about expectations. Move on to the debates themselves. A vital rule of management is you get what you measure because those who you are measuring will tend to tweak their performance to affect those measures, to the detriment of any other meaningful result. If you are going to measure who was better on the issues, then that's what you'll get... if you measure based on who looks better and sounds smoother on stage, then that's where the candidates will focus their performance. That means it matters less what you say then how you say it. If you look and sound smooth but say something just factually wrong like "Israel kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon" you tend to get rewarded in the instant analysis for the former. The fact checkers who nail for you the latter only come out later after you have already started to cement your performance. Look at Biden after his VP debate a few weeks ago, by one count he had 22 gross errors of fact but alot of analysts had him even in the debate or just a little bit worse than Palin because he looked like he knew what he was saying even if what he was saying was actually crap. Actually I thought the best part of that debate was when Governor Palin basically refused to answer the questions and just gave statements ont he issues she wanted. She knew the game. As far as last night went, Obama simply had to look smooth and composed, show that he knew what he was saying... in other words look presidential. You know what? He did, just like he did in the first 2 debates. That's not a cut against him and his performance, he just knew what he needed to do in order to "win." So let's dispense with the debates as meaningful political dialogue and just acknowledge as what it is... a political beauty contest where the only people who truly win are the talking heads who have to explain to us what we just saw. Actually I think the best "debate" in my book was when Pastor Rick Warren ran a forum where each candidate took the stage separately. So there's some food for thought. Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Debris Some thoughts... I had trouble sleeping last night, weird dreams, recurring nightmares; I thought I must have had a fever. I turned on the computer and read the papers and then I knew right away why I couldn't sleep. It was two headlines: From the NY Times: "US Investing $250 Billion in Banks" and from the WSJ: "How to Rescue the Banks: The Treasury Secretary is On the Right Track" by Senator Schumer It was then I just realized that we gave the government the commanding heights in our financial markets just weeks before a likely Democratic sweep in the elections. If Schumer's former colleague Patrick Moynihan was still in the Senate I might feel better.... Other news... On the ACORN front with all the fraudulent voters registrations that organization turned in; ACORN stands for "Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now." You know who else used to be a community organizer? So this is what community organizers do? Try and defile the electoral process? Anyone? Bueller? Paul Krugman and the Nobel Prize. For as long as I have been reading Dr. Krugman in the NY Times, I have heard people make excuses for his writing by stating that he was such an accomplished economist that he could one day win the Nobel Prize. So now he did and I will say based on what little I know of his work, good job and congratulations. However... no let's just leave it at congratulations. As far as the supposed story, since largey debunked, of Governor Palin being roundly booed at a Flyers hockey game... did anybody who reported the incident bother to acknowledge that this happened in Philadelphia? Where the fans have booed Santa Claus? (btw... I though it was a mistake for the Flyers to invite her to drop the puck) Monday, October 13, 2008
Important News of the Day I would like to take a moment from the Election and the ongoing financial crisis our country faces to deliver two pieces of important news. First and most importantly please allow me to introduce Boris, a precocious 7-week old Rhodesian Ridgeback. He's not my dog, but he does live with some fine people and I expect great things from him. Second, Canada has a national election tomorrow. I will be spending tomorrow evening at a local bar cheering on the election results, well not really... I mean the cheering part, the bar part is going to happen; I just need an excuse to get out of the house. Yes the odds are 3-2 that the Conservatives will return a minority government. Cannot you feel the excitement? Sunday, October 12, 2008
The Rezko Fork Imagine you are the first human to visit Mars. On one of your excursions across The Red Planet you come across an amazing discovery; no not flowing water or some form of bacterial life or even Marvin's Illudium Pu-36 Explosive Space Modulator. No of this fabulous scientific discoveries you find a fork, a simple everyday dinner fork. With that simple discovery, your world is blown apart. Why? Because it changes your assumptions and preconceptions, your very world view. You can often find clouds that have assumed (temporarily) the shape of animals. You can sometimes find a potato in the shape of Mother Teresa. However it's impossible for a fork to self-create, someone had to put it there. Were there space-faring civilizations on Earth before ours? Have aliens already visited our Solar System? When? Are they watching us? Do they also use forks and spoons? Tony Rezko, for the purpose of this campaign, is a fork. Now I have changed my opinion somewhat of the famous Rezko-Obama land deal. Scummy yes. Unethical quite. However not illegal under Illinois or federal statute. However what on Earth is a man like Obama, Mr. Hopeandchange, doing making sweetheart real estate deals with the likes of a Chicago political fixer like Rezko? Think about the land deal and your view of Obama and how emerged from the swampland of Chicagoland politics has to change. Now if you have made it this far good for you, I'll turn you over to someone who can pick up the story from here and explain how Rezko the Fork leads to all sorts of nasty work. Clearly, Obama’s legal Achilles heel is not directly related to Rezko but rather his dealings with the Giannoulis family and Broadway Bank. And if Fitzy can turn young Alexi – now Illinois State Treasurer – Lord knows what will spill out and complicate an Obama presidency. As they say, read the whole thing. Now Rick Moran believes that nothing will come of this before the election, because "Fitzy," that is US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of Plame fame, builds his cases slowly and surely. I agree because Mr. Fitzgerald's duty is to the legal profession and timetable, not the political one. Of course US attorneys often get swept aside when a new president takes office so we'll see if Mr. Fitzgerald is around to see the snow melt next year. Saturday, October 11, 2008
Troopergate Drive-By I'm still wiping my late-evening cocktail off the computer screen after reading the front-page story on Palin's "troopergate" in the New York Times. Someday, somewhere it should be used a seminar topic for students studying how to write a hack piece posing as serious news. The headline and lede state: Alaska Inquiry Concludes Palin Abused Powers Gov. Sarah Palin abused the powers of her office by pressuring subordinates to try to get her former brother-in-law, a state trooper, fired, an investigation by the Alaska Legislature has concluded. The inquiry found, however, that she was within her right to dismiss her public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan, who was the trooper’s boss. Abuse of office allegations is something that follows a politician around. My guess is that as long as she stays in public life, this report is going to get dredged up. In other words it's a permanent stain on her record. However is it a valid stain? That depends on the context which the NY Times article never provides. First the investigation was launched by the Alaskan Legislature which given its nature makes the the investigation a political one. Nothing wrong with that, checks and balances, separation of powers and all of that but if you have followed Palin's record as Governor you know she has butted heads with the Legislature and that the council which approved the investigation and released the report has both her enemies and Obama supporters on it. Can you say perception of "payback?" Second, the article makes passing reference, through the use of a quote from the Governor's spokeswoman, to the role of Obama supporters in the investigation. However the article provides no additional detail leaving the matter as an allegation. However the investigation was directed by a Senator Hollis French who has gone on the record as both an Obama supporter and as saying before the report was released that this would be an "October Surprise" as far as the election. Did French have an undue impact on the report? Unclear. He was responsible for hiring the investigator, but anything more than that is speculative at this point. However given this and the above point it should cast immediate doubt on the report Third the article minimized the past history of the fired trooper in question, especially as it relates to the Palin family. The article mentions early on that the trooper was the former brother-in-law of the Governor and mentions the messy divorce giving the perception that any actions against said trooper was a form of a family vendetta. The only concession the article makes to the threat that the trooper posed to the Palin family was a quote from the Governor's spokeswoman regarding "... his violent and rogue behavior.” When you quote a spokeswoman rather than cite the facts, you lower the "violent and rogue behavior” to the level of allegation. What we do know is that he tasered the Governor's nephew and indirectly threatened the life of her father by threteaning to shoot him in the head. These "allegations" led to: "The record clearly indicates a serious and concentrated pattern of unacceptable and at times, illegal activity occurring over a lengthy period, which establishes a course of conduct totally at odds with the ethics of our profession," Col. Julia Grimes, then head of Alaska State Troopers, wrote in March 1, 2006, letter suspending Wooten for 10 days. After the union protested it, the suspension was reduced to five days. Note "suspension" and not "dismissal," this is a guy who still carries a gun and a badge. If your family was injured and threatened by this guy wouldn't you be applying the screws to get him dismissed? What does someone have to do to get fired? Palin family vendetta? Hardly. More like trying to protect your family against a violent and unstable person. Fourth, Palin family influence on Wooten and Monegan. The Anchorage Daily News article states that Palin and her family had been working on the Wooten case a year before she was elected governor and was focused on the nature of the stalled internal investigation into his actions. Does that mean any resultant pressure from the Palin family after her election was justified or ethical? No but it does cast any such action in a different light; as a continuation of past efforts rather than settling accounts from a position of power. Fifth, the article fails to mention that Todd Palin had submitted a statement earlier that week stating that Governor Palin had asked him to back off on contacting any state employees regarding Wooten. Note that this was the crux of the ethics complaint, it is not clear from the report of any unethical pressure from the Governor herself but that such contact came from her husband. In the report the Governor is held resposnible for not attempting to stop her husband's actions, but this week Mr. Palin has stated that she did in fact do so. Apparently Mr. Palin refrained from making an earlier statement on the advice of the Alaska Attorney General. Sixth, the article mentions that the legislative council voted unanimously to release the report but declined to report any criticism from council members of the report giving the unwary reader a perception of the report's veracity that is totally unjustified. Is there something to Troopergate? Maybe, but this report and the national media coverage of it is more of a political hit peiece than a serious desire to get to the truth. Friday, October 10, 2008
Thoughts on Same Sex Marriage On a day when the Connecticut Supreme Court has legalized same sex marriage, some thoughts on the ramifications here in Arizona. First Connecticut becomes yet another state where the courts have cited equal protection to strike down civil unions as a separate and unequal institution. I haven't gone through the language of opinion with a fine-tooth comb, but as with California it seems that Connecticut by creating a "marriage lite" has instead paved the way for same sex marriage. I have always thought the idea of civil unions were a bit silly; trying to dress up something as anything but marriage and it seems that the fiction has fallen apart. Civil unions seem to now be merely a way station on the march to same sex marriage. Not to say that is bad or good thing, just so that we are clear that the middle ground in this debate is falling away. Second, Espresso Pundit had a post this past summer on the 2003 Standhardt case where a gay couple's attempt to over turn the law banning same sex marriage in Arizona failed to clear the Arizona Court of Appeals. Furthermore, the Arizona Supreme Court not only refused to hear the case but declined to comment on it. As you probably now, Arizona has a ballot initiative for next month which would ban same sex marriage through the state's constitution as opposed to statute. Opponents of the measure have argued in part that the measure is unnecessary given that the Arizona Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling and therefore the statue banning same sex marriage. However Espresso Pundit makes clear as you walk back the cat, the Arizona Supreme Court only upheld Standhardt, and that the lower court did not so much as uphold the statutory ban on same sex marriage as to indicate that it was not yet time to overturn it. That phrase "not taken sufficient root" is judicial code talk for "the state's not ready yet." After all, "taking root" is an ongoing process and forms an integral part of "our evolving understanding of liberty" to which the Petitioners referred. In the future, supporters of same-sex marriage will argue to the courts that same-sex marriage has indeed become "sufficiently rooted." Indeed if you go read Standhardt that's the point made. The question is what is "sufficiently rooted?" Is the decision by Governor Napolitano to extend domestic partner benefits to state employees? Cities and other political subdivisions following suit? Would a defeat of the marriage inititative next month, combined with a similar defeat in 2006, be construed as preparing the ground? As an aside, keep in mind how the 2006 campaign to defeat that ballot initiative was understaken. Rather than drumming up no votes by pointing to the desirability of same sex marriage or ending perceived discrimination, it instead worked on the other provision of the initiative which banned any sort of legal status for unmarried couples. The iniaitive lost and the anti-initiative forces immediately changed tack and claimed the defeat as a clear victory for same sex marriage. Once again, for or against, let's be clear... if this year's proposal goes down like in 2006, don't be surprised if there is another legal case brought to overturn the ban on same sex marriage based on the idea that the concept is now sufficiently rooted in Arizona. Wednesday, October 8, 2008
The Blue Abyss There are still some twists and turns to come in this election so this post might be premature, but meh. We're four weeks out from Election Day and this could be a Democratic landslide. Yeah Obama extended his lead by several more points in the polls and my guess is that barring some sort of breakthrough on Rezko/Ayers/Wright or even ACORN, that lead is going to start to harden. However what's even more disconcerting is the meltdown on the Senate races. The key number here is 60 as in the number of seats the Democrats need to have in order to fully control the chamber come January. If Obama wins, the Republicans' only chance to slow down the Democrat agenda will be to filibuster in the Senate. Currently the Democrats have control of 51 seats and as of this moment in the campaign now they either now lead or in a dead-heat in 8 Republican-held seats with no Democratic seats under threat. Even more worrisome is that 7 of those 8 races have seen a large shift to the Democrats in the past few weeks with the 8th race being in Colorado where Udall has actually seen his lead shrink but still has a comfortable advantage. So it's possible even at this late date for the Democrats to have 59 Senators in the next Congress; of course the odds are against them in scoring all 8 races, but how close do they need to get to 60? Would 58 do it? 57? Keep in mind that the Republican caucus still holds members like Collins, Snowe, and Voinovich? Would they switch or just be amenable to breaking filibusters? What happens if the polls continue to move in this direction and start to threaten other seats such as Chambliss in Georgia? So if the electoral nightmare scenario happens (Obama wins and the Democrats get 60 in the Senate) , the Democrats will be in their strongest position in 30 years. So what could we expect in January? First off I don't expect some of the more reckless policies to be implemented right away. Tax increase in the face of a recession? Tabled until the economy improves, but throw out some bones like bringing back the death tax. Large spending increases? Tabled and blame the deficit. Immediate withdrawal from Iraq with chance of resultant genocide ? Waffled with at worst general agreement on phased withdrawal. Expect blame for these policy shifts to be directed at the mess that dastardly Bush Administration left. However for every action, there is a reaction and if an Obama Administration backs off on these policy promises then it's going to have ante up on some other favored Democratic proposals that would have less of a dramatic impact on the economy and the world. Like check card. Good bye secret union ballot. Reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. If you want to listen to Rush, you better plan on subscribing to Sirius. Investigations of the Bush Administration. Thought the former head of Lehman Brothers got grilled by that House Committee on Monday? Ain't seen nothing yet. In fact I bet you will see, regardless of the November results, a move for impeachment by the House after Election Day. Best of all? The FY2009 budget. Did you know that we're 2 weeks into the fiscal year and not one appropriations bill has been passed yet? Well, they did pass one which was a continuing budget resolution that is effective until March 2009. So there is a good chance there wouldn't be a FY2009 budget till the fiscal year is almost half over and that budget will be passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic president. There's 30 years of frustration and vengeance built up in the Democratic Party and unless something in the next few weeks changes the momentum right quick, it's going to come like a gale force wind in January. Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Why Ayers Matters With all due respect to the formidable Ms. McArdle (who is a daily must read), Ayers does matter. Over the last 30 years, unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers has been accepted into Chicago society where he holds a professorship at a public university. As I wrote yesterday, he has gained this position and prominence despite his lack of remorse about his terrorist past. In fact you could argue his local claim to fame and position derives from that past and not because of it. Apparently he is also player of some note in Chicagoland politics and is a rainmaker in his local Hyde Park neighborhood, as with his professorship this speaks volumes about the quality of public life in Chicago. Mr. Ayers is a repugnant figure. He has betrayed the very society that has nurtured him and given him much privilege; instead of giving it support he has instead levied war against it. While the claim that he attacked only property and not people is technically true, it wasn't for the lack of trying. To this day, not only does he remain unrepentant for his past deeds but instead he trades on them in order to profit from the very society he had once and still tries to destroy. I believe another Marxist once remarked about society selling you the hangman's rope. It speaks to a certain sickness in our culture that instead of making the man an outcast, he instead is given a place of honor. As for Senator Obama, he has remarked that Ayers was simply a man in his neighborhood. Of course, Obama launched his political career in the mid-1990s through a reception held at Ayers' residence. The facts are still fleshing themselves out but it is a reasonable assumption that in order to advance in Mr. Ayers' neighborhood, that you had to kiss his ring. This after all is Chicago. Obama's relationship with Ayers continued through the latter's influence in getting the now Senator appointed to various positions on foundations. Why does this matter? Isn't this old history? Let's flip the names and relationships a bit. If Senator McCain launched his political career with and benefited from an association with an unrepentant abortion clinic bomber or a member of a Christian Idenity movement, you think that might be front page news? Ask yourself, how far would you go to further career? Isn't there a clear, bright line that Furthermore, it's not if Mr. Ayers has been silent and mouldering in Chicago, but instead has been involved in many "educational reform" movements that are just now being brought to light. In one sense, Ms. McArdle is right in that this is overblown because this should have come up during the primaries when Senator Obama was still running as the agent of "hope" and "change." Now that he has the nomination, he can just run as a generic Democrat in a very anti-Republican year. In another sense, Obama knows this stuff is political dynamite. Witness the attacks and stonewalling when Stanley Kurtz tried to investigate the files of the Annenberg Challenge, on which both Ayers and Obama served. First he was promsied access to the archives housed at a public university, then that access was withdrawn based on the need to gain permission of the donor, and then when that access was later reinstated and Mr. Kurtz went on local Chicago radio to discuss his work the Obama campaign sent out a national alert for campaign supporters to launch the equivalent of a denial of service attack. Then of course Obama campaign chief strategist David Axelrod said that the Senator didn't know Ayers' past when attended that initial political meet-and-greet. That sort of response should set off the panic alarm among Obama supporters because no one, not even Obama's supporters in the media, believe that one. Feeding frenzies have been set off on far less and guarantees that this will be a hot topic going into tonight's debate. So what does this say about Obama? One of two things.... First, that he thinks so little of the radicalism of people like Mr. Ayers' that he thinks nothing of soliciting the man's support. or Second, Senator Obama will do whatever it takes to advance his career even if that means getting ahead by associating with the most odious characters in Chicago public life. The man of "hope" and "change" is nothing but the rankest of opportunists in a field full of them. I am leaning toward the second. Monday, October 6, 2008
Forgiveness and Public Life A couple of axioms: 1) People are not perfect and therefore make mistakes. Not just misplace the keys types of mistakes but larger and repeated mistakes that are based in faulty judgment and character flaws. 2) People can change over time. Argue from any perspective you like, but if you are Christian and deal with sin both in your personal life and in the wider world and the role of Christ in the larger scheme of things then those axioms shouldn't be that controversial. How do we deal with public figures? Especially those who commit criminal or unethical acts? Certainly we have a judicial system that can mete out criminal and civil punishments, but at what point do we let a certain wayward wise man back into our counsels? Does a DUI 22 years ago or an affair early in life permanently exclude that person from contributing to society? I think the key here, once again borrowing from Christianity, is contrition and the desire for forgiveness. Not desire in the sense of asking forgiveness for public drunkenness but then planning after the press conference to stop by the store for a fifth of Wild Turkey or admitting to an affair then taking a few weeks off and declare yourself "cured." A man who was a drunk but has rearranged his life and stayed sober for 20 years or had an affair but has been a dedicated and faithful husband for the past few decades has shown, I think, the proper spirit of apology. You may not never trust a convicted embezzler with company funds but you can I think allow them at some point and under some circumstances to rejoin society as a fully functioning citizen. So what's the deal with William Ayers? The man and his relationship to Senator Obama has, finally, come up for a closer examination. The idea that he was just someone in the Senator's neighborhood or crossed paths a few times isn't going to hold water. Who knows where this will go or what we will find out about the two men's relationship. There has been additional attention on Mr. Ayers and who he is and what he did. First Mr. Ayers levied war against the United States, perhaps not in a legal sense but certainly in an operational sense. He used violence and explosives as tools in his attempted campaign to undermine the constitutional order of the United States including planned attacks against its armed forces. He has yet to apoligize or express regret for such actions. The fact that he enjoys a distinguished professorship at a major public university rather than a cold prison cell speaks more to mechanics of the legal system that he tried to destroy than any doubt of his guilt. Second in his war, he tried to kill members of the armed forces. Many have pointed out that his bombings only destroyed property and that no one was killed, well except when Ayer's compatriots goofed and blew themselves up in Greenwich Village. However that bomb which prematurely detonated in Greenwich was a nail bomb intended for the Fort Dix NCO Club and nail bombs are by their nature anti-personnel devices. It was only by his own incompetence and not by choice that Mr. Ayers is not a muderer. So why has Mr. Ayers been able to rejoin society? He has never apoligized for his actions or hidden those actions from view. However he now enjoys a high and pretigious position within Chicago politics, a perch that it appears Obama tried to exploit as he was building his political career in the 1990s. Statute of limitations is a legal term which doesn't even apply in all circumstances and certainly doesn't apply in terms of public opprobium. This unrepentant man should be an outcast Forgiveness and acceptance should follow an appeal for such action and from sincere contrition, but perhaps Ayers should be excused from such an appeal given that Chicago was so eager to award him such public honors for nothing. That doesn't speak well of that city, especially given the chaos the man tried to sow in its streets in 1968. If you lived in Hyde Park 1990s, as Obama did, you had to know the man and his reputation So what does it say about a man like Obama, to welcome the support of the most evil of men, the failed destroyer of the Republic, and then try and become the leader of that exact same nation? What kind of man does that? Saturday, October 4, 2008
Cannot Expect a Reporter to Know This In importance in Arizona politics right now, right up there with "if" Governor Napolitano is appointed as Attorney General to an Obama cabinet is "when" that would happen. Given the immediate crisis of the State's budget, it's a question of whether the Legislature will meet in lame duck after the November election or wait until the new Legislature is seated in January. Last night on KAET's "Horizon" program, Arizona Republic lead local political reporter Mary Jo Pitzl opined (I'm paraphrasing here) that the "when" is not important given that previous cabinet appointments occurred in the January following the election. Actually for the past two AG selections made by new president-elects, Zoe Baird and John Ashcroft, their nominations were announced in December. Something to keep in mind if Governor Napolitano continues to offer the need "to come to agreement on numbers" as a reason for delaying to call the Legislature back into the session until January. Friday, October 3, 2008
Post-Debate Two thoughts on the debate: First, it was amusing to listen to journalists or read their columns over the Gwen Ifill Affair. What affair? The fact that she was moderating the VP debate last night when she had a book due to come out on Inauguration Day; a book with Senator Obama being a major subject. Potential conflict of interest? You bet... what do you think the difference in sales will be between Obama winning and Obama losing the White House? Everyone I listened or read seemed to agree that Ms. Ifill is a great and respected journalist, top class. Nobody would believe that she would do anything less than a bang-up, professional job and none saw her performance as anything less than that. However that's not the point, the point was that she was in a compromised position and there was never any disclosure to the audience of what position she was in or how she might stand to gain from the victory of one ticket over the other. The media likes to portray itself as the fourth branch of government. However in the other 3 branches, conflicts of interest are not officially tolerated; judges recuse themselves, politicians put assets in blind trusts, etc. The key is not the operation of a conflict of interest, but its appearance. That point seems to mean nothing to the media. So why again does the media get a priviliged position at these debates? Second, alot of talk of who won the debate last night. Some keep score cards of who won on a given question or what not, like this was some sort of high school forensics meet. Pish Tosh. Look the VP nominees each had 2 goals for last night: 1) Make the boss look good for picking you since you'll be a heartbeat away; I guess the corollary is don't make your boss look like an idiot for picking you. 2) Take a hatchet to the other guy's boss. That means looking good and coming across well on TV, not scoring points with Ms. Ifill. For Governor Palin it means getting her points out and not being confined by the questioner, as what happened in the Katie Couric interview. For Senator Biden it was trying to get his experience shine forth by appearing authoritative. If you define "winning" by winning the debate format, then you are a fool; it's about getting your image and views out to those who are watching TV. Okay I have a third point, more of a question. Maybe it's the TV station I watch or the radio I listen to but alot of talking heads are ripping on Palin for avoiding the questions but hardly one is chewing up Biden for just pumping out gaffes or outright lies by the barrel. Not to say Palin was complete truth-teller she but Biden was so far over the top it wasn't even funny; if she made even a fraction of those whoppers many trees would have been killed to print newspaper that would proclaim she should be dropped from the ticket. As Jonah Goldberg states, Biden makes up things with great passion and conviction. That type of stuff sounds great and authoritative during the debate but takes more background info than the average voter posseses to be able to detect them as lies. Yet when I listen to stations like NPR, where such background info exists, and the "who said the whopper last night" point comes up Biden gets a free pass Thursday, October 2, 2008
Fecklessness of Finance Two stories, one new and one old. First the new, to be filed under "Emergency, Not Acting Like One Exists".... The revised bailout bill includes tens of billions of dollars in tax breaks for the middle class and for homeowners who don't itemize their deductions; $3 billion for rural-school programs over the next five years; and $8 billion over the same period in disaster aid, much of it for Midwestern states. It also includes a requirement that insurance plans provide better benefits for mental health. I am sure that any House Republican who changes their vote will say it was because it was to save the country or something like that, as opposed to getting the tax break of their choice; so it will be hard to find the guilty. However given the stakes and threat to the economy and nation, this is analogous to deciding to declare war on the Japanese based on the amount of pork you can get out of FDR. Yeah, yeah I know... financial crisis as the equivalent of going to war on all of that but it is a critical vote and should be done on whether you think it's right for the country and not on getting your pet project through. Put it this way, was it all it took to spend $700 billion about $15 billion or so in tax credits? Second, the old to be filed under "To be Done, When I'm Long Gone" Yesterday, JLBC released the monthly fiscal highlight for September and an FY 2009 economic and budget update. Long story short? The budget and Arizona's economy is getting worse; those who offered the band-aid and borrow approach this past Spring to get us through a short rough spot have been exposed with the current fiscal year shortfall up to $300 million only 3 months in. So how does the Republic build the lede for the article? State government will continue to tighten its belt - perhaps to the point of cutting off circulation - while looking for new ways to bring in money without raising taxes, Gov. Janet Napolitano said Wednesday in discussing a state budget deficit that could amount to $800 million. Well yes "could amount" is true in the sense that if things dramatically improve it may only be "$800 million." Why the Republic decided to quote in the lede the one person who has been the most consistently wrong on the State's fiscal crisis is beyond me. However here's the killer: Weiers said he will meet with the governor today to begin laying the groundwork for a budget fix. Both he and Napolitano said it was unclear if there would be a special session of the Legislature this year, or whether the work would be done in the new year, when a new Legislature is seated. Cabinet appointments are usually made by Christmas, so it's possible by the time the Legislature sits down to clean up the mess Napolitano could be long gone. Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Confidence in Government 2 1/2 years ago, the City of Phoenix held a series of bond elections. The one that attracted the most attention involved the City building ASU a downtown campus. Strange you say, a city building a campus for a state-supported university, especially when that money could have been used for other unmet needs such as police substations, but the City wanted to get foot traffic downtown and ASU wanted a free campus. At least we as taxpayers were spared the justification that the campus would help spark economic growth; after all nobody would call moving the School Of Journalism there the engine of downtown growth. Now the Arizona Republic reports (and good job by the way) that even the enrollment numbers claimed for the downtown campus aren't all what they seem. ASU claims a downtown enrollment for 2008 of 8,400 students. The key term is "enrollment" because the number counts students who enroll in classes offered by departments which are headquartered in downtown; the student in question may never set foot on the downtown campus and instead attend classes at the other campuses. As the Republic states, this means about of those 8,400 students actually set foot downtown. Upset? Little angry about the weaselness? Well get over it... "But why do they think that?" (ASU President Michael) Crow asked. "The institution isn't run based on fourth-graders sitting in a classroom being counted the way that fourth-graders are being counted." If this was my deal, I would be reaching for the contractual language right now to show President Crow that the deal he made with my fine city clearly states that the enrollment numbers for downtown would involve students actually... you know... being downtown. I would point to the language in our contract (or in this case inter-governmental agreement), that in exchange for giving him a free campus downtown that he was obligated to actually populate said campus with actual students, otherwise that campus would be more an office park than an educational institution. There is such language right? Our beloved mayor, head of supposedly one of the best run cities in the world didn't just build ASU a $220 million (closer to half-billion after interest) campus for free and not include some basic language to protect its interests? It did right? Oh dear Should I now be worried about the brand-new downtown hotel that the City just dropped several hundred million on? |
