Archive for April, 2009
April 30th, 2009, 1:14 pm by Le Templar
 Gov. Janet Brewer Gov. Jan Brewer has fired a shot across the bow of Arizona State University and its president, Michael Crow, by suggesting the state can’t afford two top-tier research universities.
Arizona’s governor is a nonvoting member of the Arizona Board of Regents, and Brewer attended her first regents’ meeting today in Tucson. She clearly isn’t happy about the three public universities again adopting huge hikes in student tuitions, this time in response to recent cuts in state funding. At ASU, tuition for the typical in-state student has risen by nearly 63 percent since 2002, and will be at $6,700 for the fall semester (including a “temporary” recession surcharge).
In her prepared remarks, Brewer said she will use federal stimulus money to back fill some of the cash that universities have lost, with the intent of limiting the cost increases for students. But the governor warned that the federal money runs out in two years, and she challenged the regents to come up with better business model that will keep university costs as affordable as possible. This sentence was particularly intriguing:
“Having almost all of our undergraduates in research level universities is too expensive.”
While not mentioning Crow or ASU by name, she clearly had both in mind. Elevating ASU’s research status to among the best in the country has been Crow’s driving priority for the past six years, although it still lags behind the University of Arizona. ASU also has the state’s largest student enrollment (and one of the largest in the country).
I expect lots of political clashes between Crow’s ASU and the Brewer administration over the next year.
Posted in: Arizona State University • Arizona government • Congress • Governor • Presidential campaign • Schools • Uncategorized • Arizona Board of Regents • Jan Brewer • Michael Crow | 5 Comments »
April 29th, 2009, 4:53 pm by Le Templar
 And now for something completely stupid…
Right now on CNN, “The Situation Room” is conducting a program Wolf Blitzer is calling The National Report Card. People are being asked to go to the CNN website and provide “grades” on a series of questions related to the first 100 days of the Obama administration.
The first question? Give a grade to Vice President Joe Biden. And what exactly has he done so far that would earn him more than an incomplete? Huh, what?
The second question (and the reason I started to pay attention to this) asks people to grade their state’s senators. As presented on television, Blitzer gave the impression that people were weighing in individually on each senator. It might have been somewhat interesting to hear what CNN viewers think of Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl. But the Web site actually asked a visitor for a single grade for “your state’s two senators,” without a reminder about who might represent your state in Congress. So it would have been quite easy to “grade” senators when you didn’t know their names, their party or their voting record.
After the CNN voting was finished, the “grade” shown for McCain and Kyl (presumably) is a C-plus. That might be OK in Arizona, where the two senators are from the same party and vote relatively close together. But such a grade must be completely meaningless for people living in, say, Nebraska or New Hampshire, where the senators are from different parties and have different governing philosophies.
If you want to waste a few minutes, the current question is grading Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
Posted in: Uncategorized | Post a Comment »
April 28th, 2009, 11:05 am by Le Templar
The main lobbying group for Arizona’s municipalities must suffering from a bit of whiplash today. For several weeks, the League of Arizona Cities and Towns has been waging a somewhat quiet but intense campaign to shut down a plan from a homebuilders’ group to freeze or scale back development impact fees to help the industry recover from the recession.
Well, Republicans leaders apparently got a different idea from the homebuilders proposal, as those lawmakers now want to seize the impact fees to help balance the state budget. An estimated $210 million would offer some relief from the pressure for a tax increase or to add to the state’s growing debts.
This is only the latest in a series of efforts by lawmakers to divert municipal revenues into state hands. Senate President Bob Burns, R-Peoria, has long wanted to reduce the amount of state-shared revenue that goes to bigger cities, as he believes those municipalities raise plenty of money on their own and the state should be using those funds elsewhere.
Then last year, the Legislature tried to order cities and counties to repay $29.7 million in state-shared revenues they already had received to help balance the budget. Cities are quick to point out the state Supreme Court blocked that move in February. But the state Supreme Court didn’t say lawmakers couldn’t take the money. The Legislature just used the wrong procedure, at least in theory.
So there’s an open question as to whether the Legislature could seize local impact fees. But since that move likely would delay or cancel a number of capital construction projects (think roads, parks and fire stations), I doubt the Legislature actually will go through with this.
Posted in: Arizona Legislature • Arizona government • Arizona League of Cities and Towns • Home Builders Association of Central Arizona • impact fees | 1 Comment »
April 27th, 2009, 11:18 am by Le Templar
Everyone else is talking today about the swine flu in Mexico and whether the disease could sweep through the U.S., so I thought I’d tackle something different. The National Rifle Association is bringing its annual convention to Phoenix in mid-May, just as there has been a rash of mass shootings in recent weeks. I expect to hear a lot of arguments in support of the Second Amendment similar to the view expressed in Friday’s Tribune by letter writer Mark Hawthorne. The basic contention is any mass killing by a firearm is little different than a mass killing by swords, knives or archery. Hawthorne wrote:
“Any tool, whether it is a pocket knife, baseball bat, shovel, et al., when placed in the hands of a murderous deviant, can achieve similar results. It’s an issue of personal responsibility.”
But this view is fundamentally inaccurate and most Americans know it. Different weapons bring different considerations to civilized society, and modern firearms deliver a level of lethality that simply can’t be ignored.
Think about being in a crowd or in your office, and you want to start slashing with a knife. You would have to physically engage your victims and stab for the most vulernable parts of the body. You would expose yourself to a counter-attack simply by promixity to your target, and you could be overwhelmed by others who might come to the aid of your first victim.
But with a pistol or revolver (as easily hidden as a knife), you can stand several feet away and fire bullets through a victim’s toughest bones. A victim can try to close the distance to counter-attack (assuming he or she isn’t disabled by the first bullet), but likely will be shot two or three more times before the victim can get in a single strike for defense. If on-lookers want to come to a victim’s aid, you can quickly quick point your gun in their direction and disable or kill them as well before they can reach you.
Even bow-and-arrow mayhem doesn’t offer this kind of lethality. In the time an average person would need to arm a bow, aim and let fly with a single arrow, a person with a semi-automatic Glock could fire 9 or 10 shots more accurately and do more damage. Of course, the lethal nature of firearms escalate exponentially when you talk about rifles and machine guns.
My guess is most people haven’t examined this argument in such a manner, but they inituitively understand the inherent difference between handheld weapons and firearms. And that’s why many people see all gun rights groups as slightly off-kilter, because a lot of Second Amendment advocates fail to acknowledge what is patently obvious — put a powerful firearm in the hands of a deranged killer and more people are going to die than if that murderer was armed only with a kitchen knife.
Personally, I believe a much stronger argument for broad Second Amendment protections takes an approach sort of like Mutual Assured Destruction. If more good people were armed (and took some safety training), potential killers would have harder time finding multiple victims unable to defend themselves. They are far too many guns in the world to expect we could keep them all out of the hands of outlaws. But outlaws would be less eager to reach for their weapons if they risked an immediate counter-attack from law-abiding citizens who can match their fire power.
Posted in: Libertarian values • Mutual Assured Destruction • National Rifle Association • Second Amendment | 15 Comments »
April 22nd, 2009, 9:53 pm by Le Templar
 Republican Chris Simcox launches his bid Monday for the U.S. Senate at the state Capitol in Phoenix (Capitol Media Services). I didn’t attend the press conference today at which Chris Simcox formally began a campaign to defeat U.S. Sen. John McCain in the 2010 Republican primary. But I’m not surprised his announcement was dominated by the issue that has kept him in the spotlight for the past four years: stopping illegal immigration. Simcox gained attention in political circles after he founded the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps and took his cause nationwide with the 2005 call for civilian patrols based in Tombstone that inspired new chapters and copycat organizations across the country. Even though McCain was the 2008 Republican candidate for president, his popularity has slipped within his home state party in part because of his support for comprehensive immigration reform, which critics see as code for immigrant amnesty. The issue is likely to heat up again this year as President Barack Obama has pledged to seek passage of immigration policy changes that have failed in Congress recently.
But as McCain began his bid for president, he retreated from comprehensive immigration reform to support a “secure the border first” stance. He repeats those words no matter how hard he’s pressed now (scroll down to the 8 a.m. hour on April 15).
Simcox will have to become competitive on other issues, or he’ll never be a serious threat to McCain. Here’s my evidence as to why:
- Jim Gilchrist of Aliso Viejo, Calif., was Simcox’s partner in 2005 when the Minuteman movement got underway. Later that year Gilchrist ran for the U.S. House as a third-party candidate during a special election in his conservative district. He did relatively well, but he never really challenged the eventually Republican winner.
- Closer to home, Don Goldwater (nephew of Barry Goldwater) ran for the Republican nomination for Arizona governor in 2006 and was supported by Simcox because Goldwater made illegal immigration a centerpiece of his campaign. But he lost by a wide margin to Len Munsil, whose comments on the issue were more moderate (as far as Republicans go).
- Former U.S. Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., also lost his bid for re-election in 2006 after a well-publicized shift to the right on immigration issues during the prior two years. Hayworth routinely claims that Democrat Harry Mitchell actually had TV campaign ads that were tougher on illegal immigration than Hayworth’s own campaign. But I have yet to speak to a voter in the 5th Congressional District who so confused in 2006 as to believe that Mitchell was closer to Simcox’s views than Hayworth.
- State Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, has to be the best known Arizona politician who campaigns for really tough immigration policies, after Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Pearce has been urged by Simcox and others to run either for governor or the U.S. House. But Pearce has backed off from both after he realized that an immigration-centered campaign wouldn’t capture enough voters and also would turn away many would-be donors who want more expansive immigration policies.
Simcox’s best chance is voter turnout for the 2010 primary could be incredibly low, as first noted by blogger Greg Patterson. That means only the most active and loyal Republicans will cast ballots, and some of McCain’s loudest critics come from that crowd. But any Republican who upsets McCain likely would be vulnerable to a Democrat in the general election, which is why I expect most of the Republican Party machinery to unite behind the senator. That will leave Simcox sitting at home after the 2010 primary, assuming he makes it that far.
Here’s a short video clip of Simcox’s press conference:
Posted in: Congress • Election issues • Immigration • 2010 • Chris Simcox • illegal immigration • John McCain | Post a Comment »
April 21st, 2009, 10:19 am by Le Templar
 Stephen Colbert/Associated Press As you’ve probably seen or at least heard by now, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio was in New York City on Monday to appear on “The Colbert Report.” It wasn’t a particular good experience for either the sheriff or the comedian, which I believe is confirmed by the fact that Comedy Central didn’t post the interview as a separate video clip this morning.
Of course, Colbert makes his living doing a nightly spoof of conservative talk show hosts. He’s so popular, especially among young adults, that even obvious targets of his humor (such as Arpaio) feel compelled to go on Colbert’s show in the hope of getting their message out to his audience.
As a Colbert fan, I was disappointed that he wasn’t prepared for this interview. He spent the first 30 seconds reading word-for-word a summary of Arpaio’s record and then verbally flopped around, unable to phrase a question that Arpaio could even attempt to answer.
Meanwhile, the sheriff was caught off-guard when Colbert mentioned that two reporters had won a Pulitzer Prize Monday for their investigative work on Arpaio’s illegal immigration enforcement practices. I wonder if Arpaio’s PR staff was afraid to tell him about it before he went to the taping. Colbert could have helped to clue in Arpaio if he had bothered to mention the newspaper that won the Pulitzer or the name of the series that received journalism’s highest honor. Trust me, Arpaio is quite familiar with both.
Once Colbert found his footing, the exchange was cordial with Arpaio basically sticking to stock sound bites such as “I enforce all of the laws.” My guess is Arpaio’s goal was to get through the six minutes or so without engaging in actual conversation with Colbert. Mission accomplished, although Colbert contributed mightily with his mistakes.
Colbert’s best line (which he said twice to good laughs from the audience): “I want to see your identification.”
Posted in: Uncategorized | 4 Comments »
April 20th, 2009, 12:57 pm by Le Templar
RYAN GABRIELSON AND PAUL GIBLIN HAVE BEEN HONORED WITH A 2009 PULITZER PRIZE FOR THEIR LOCAL REPORTING IN THE TRIBUNE LAST YEAR.
The first hint we received about what happened Monday just before noon was when Tribune writer Ryan Gabrielson stood up from his desk, gasping uncontrollably. In shock, Gabrielson struggled to tell nearby colleagues what was wrong, or exactly what was right. He and former Tribune colleague Paul Giblin had just won a Pulitzer Prize in local reporting, for their 2008 investigative series “Reasonable Doubt” which examined the practices and fallout from Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s policy to broadly enforce federal immigration laws.
As a bright reminder of his humility, Gabrielson needed several minutes to recover from the shock before it realized he needed to start making some phone calls: to his wife, to Giblin, to their editor Patti Epler, to his wife again as he had only reached her voice mail earlier. One of those people asked if the entire Tribune newsroom was celebrating with champagne, which is something of a tradition.
“Why would we have champagne?” Gabrielson responded. “We didn’t ever think we’d win when we sent (the Pulitzer entry) to them.”
Unlike what sometimes happens with national outlets, the Tribune received no advance word whatsoever about this announcement. So we’re all a little stunned as we express our congratulations to Gabrielson and Giblin and everyone else involved in putting that project together.
Posted in: Uncategorized | 4 Comments »
April 17th, 2009, 11:34 am by Le Templar
KAREN JOHNSON, CANDIDATE FOR ARIZONA GOVERNOR AND A FORMER STATE LAWMAKER FROM MESA, ENJOYS A LIGHTER MOMENT IN FEBRUARY 2008 (Tribune file photo).
In theory, Karen Johnson’s formal move to enter the Republican primary against Gov. Jan Brewer could inject an interesting philosophical debate about the proper role of government, as she was a strident advocate for rolling back spending and for limiting the reach of the state while she was in the Legislature. (The Tribune first reported Johnson wanted to run for governor back in August.) She’s the latest of a group of anti-tax, small-government types to file early for the 2010 races. But she certainly has the highest profile and most political contacts of any challenger to date. While critics tried to write her off as crazy right-wing, but she was influential on issues such as blocking Arizona’s participation in the REAL ID program.
However, Johnson also comes with a full collection of conspiracy theory baggage that likely will dominate any serious attention she gets. For years, Johnson dabbled with fringe “the government really is out to get you” causes. But they were generally viewed as eccentric ticks of a kindly grandmother/loyal conservative Republican politician. Then, as Johnson set about to leave the Legislature in 2008, she fully embraced the 9/11 “truth” movement and even made a 10-minute speech about it on the state Senate floor as seen in the video below. Basically, Johnson has signed up with “Loose for change” types who are convinced the Bush administration completely lied about who was behind the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Washington, and believe the federal government had a direct hand in killing nearly 3,000 people.
This view is generally easy to debunk and the Tribune Editorial Board previously pointed out Johnson’s faulty logic. Unless Johnson disavows those views, I can’t imagine that she’ll have any significant impact on the campaign.
Posted in: Arizona government • Governor • 9/11 • Jan Brewer • Karen Johnson • Loose change | 3 Comments »
April 16th, 2009, 10:56 am by Le Templar
Crowd members stand on landscape rocks holding flags and signs during the anti-tax TEA Party rally in front of the Gilbert Municipal Complex on April 15, 2009 (Ralph Freso/Tribune).
I was impressed by the enthusiastic turnout and general attitude of Wednesday’s TEA parties across the U.S., which included a noontime crowd of more than 1,000 people in Gilbert and up to 5,000 people at the state Capitol later that afternoon. Sure, what started as a truly grassroots protest against excessive federal spending under President Barack Obama was co-opted by various radio talk show stations and political action groups. But that’s the beauty of freedom of speech and of peaceful assembly. Those rights work together to establish the power of like-minded people coming together to seek change in-person and through mass media as well as the latest social networks.
At least some of the energy at the protests were fueled by the disclosure earlier this week that U.S. Homeland Security had distributed a memo that “right-wing extremism” is likely to rise because of the bad economy and our first black president. A lot of people are angry that this terrorism risk assessment seems to be a sweeping indictment of conservative values such as limited government and pro-life.
The real question is, will Wednesday’s mass protests make a difference? It’s clear to me that Obama is somewhat worried. If you listen closely to his Tuesday speech on the economy at Georgetown University, he devotes a lot of time directly answering all of the criticism. If you didn’t watch it live, here’s another opportunity to see how the president tries to defend that massive buildup of federal debt.
http://www.vimeo.com/4156541
Posted in: Libertarian values • Barack Obama • KFYI • TEA Party | 4 Comments »
April 15th, 2009, 11:12 am by Le Templar
A collection of wild-eyed dreamers already have emerged with the hope of challenging Gov. Jan Brewer in the 2010 elections. No, I’m not talking about Terry Goddard or Jim Pederson or Andrew Thomas or J.D. Hayworth. The first official candidates are real longshots, the kind that media pundits have traditionally called political gadflies.
The best known of this group would be Roy Miller, a political blogger who helped to found the Goldwater Institute and is a frequent Tribune letter writer. Others who have filed with the secretary of state include church pastor Tim Willis, insurance agent Janelle Wood and business accountant Hugh Kealer.
But the candidate with the catchiest name and best campaign Web site to date has to be John Paul Mitchell, who is just 30 and a manager at a Phoenix credit card call center. He also has self-published a book which lays some groundwork to explain how we can run modern government in America without collecting any taxes (the ultimate libertarian dream!).
I am most intrigued by Mitchell’s “self-designed” campaign logo. Take a look.
It is pretty good. But Mitchell claims he came up with the logo “from scratch” after teaching himself how to use Adobe Illustrator. Really? There isn’t anything out there that might have inspired this design? Nothing that looks remarkably similar and has been seen around the world for the past year?
Mitchell told me others have noted the same similarity since he unveiled his logo earlier this month. While “partially inspired” by the Obama campaign logo, Mitchell gives more credit to the Arizona state flag and its sunrise colors.
“I wanted to choose a circular logo because anything with a circle represents wholeness,” Mitchell said.
So, do you think Mitchell’s logo is a flattering imitation or is he simply a copycat? You decide.
Posted in: Arizona government • Governor • Presidential campaign • Barack Obama • Campaign logos • John Paul Mitchell | 6 Comments »
|
|
Twitter