Archive for the 'Libertarian values' Category
October 14th, 2009, 10:57 am by Le Templar
 Mark Flatten/Tribune file If Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon and Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox think they can just ignore the new investigative writer for the Goldwater Institute, then they have forgotten who Mark Flatten is. Especially Wilcox, as Flatten seems to clearly prove she used her political connections to land and keep a lucrative restaurant contract at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, and she violated federal rules while doing so.
Unlike Gordon and Wilcox, I haven’t forgotten Flatten. He was one of the best investigative journalists in the state during his years with the East Valley Tribune, and possibly one of Arizona’s best ever. He’s methodical, relentless and has amazing organizational skills. And he never allows an investigative report to be published until he’s sure he has covered all of the angles.
But given the uncertain future of the Tribune, Flatten decided this summer to strike out on a new venture. In an evolution from the traditional model of political think tanks, the Goldwater Institute hired Flatten to continue pursuing his craft which includes following the ethical tenets of journalism. But many Arizona journalists have wondered if Flatten really would have the freedom to objectively pursue a story to its logical conclusion, or would the Goldwater Institute subtly (or overtly) coerce Flatten’s writing to fit the institute’s libertarian outlook.
I think there’s some evidence for both points of view in Flatten’s first report for the institute — a detailed looked at the process of providing access to Sky Harbor concessions contracts for minority-owned and disadvantaged businesses. Goldwater Institute was an early advocate for a proposed state law that would end race-based preferences in government contracts and other policies. Flatten makes clear the proposed law, which the Legislature has asked state voters to consider in November 2010, played some role in inspiring his report.
But Flatten’s investigative work also shines through, especially when it comes to Wilcox. In a nutshell, Flatten reports Wilcox got a sweetheart deal to gain 30 percent ownership of a Chili’s restaurant at Sky Harbor. The master airport contractor who owns 70 percent of the restaurant used the fact that Wilcox is a Hispanic woman to help the contractor meet Phoenix’s minority-ownership rules. In return, Wilcox didn’t have put any money into the business for her 30 percent and she doesn’t have any clearly defined role in operating the restaurant, both of which are a violation of rules from the Federal Aviation Administration, Flatten reported.
Wilcox flat-out refused to answer any questions from Flatten, claiming he was delving into a private business matter. Huh? Wilcox is making money from a taxpayer-funded airport that’s heavily regulated by various governments, and she’s an long-time elected public servant. But she wants to claim privacy? Ridiculous.
Gordon and most administrators at the airport refused substantive interviews with Flatten as well. That might possibly might make more sense, as the Goldwater Institute has been suing that city in a separate, high-profile case. To Gordon’s credit, he gave definite, if brief, answers when Flatten tracked him down for a walking hallway interview. (”No. No, sir,” was about Gordon had to say.)
But Flatten refused to allow those closed doors to stop him. He dug through contracts, email and thousands of other public records to get the story. The great thing about the Internet is some of the most important records are posted with links embedded right into the Goldwater Institute report. So we don’t just have to take Flatten’s word on what he found, we can read the evidence for ourselves.
We continue to miss Flatten here at the Tribune. But it’s great to see that he’s still serving the public by uncovering flaws and undue political influence in government.
Posted in: Election issues • Journalism • Libertarian values • Maricopa County • Phoenix • Public records • Goldwater Institute • Mary Rose Wilcox • Phil Gordon • Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport | 5 Comments »
September 28th, 2009, 1:27 pm by Le Templar
 Matthew Ladner A while back, I mentioned a survey of high school students by the Goldwater Institute that used civics questions from the standard U.S. citizenship test. The survey found 96.5 percent of the students couldn’t get a passing score (although students at private schools fared substantially better than those at public schools). Now, the Goldwater Institute’s Matthew Ladner offers a sliver of hope about those results.
Another conservative think tank in Oklahoma was intrigued by the Goldwater Institute experiment and wanted to try it on students in Sooner country. So that think tank used the same set of questions for its own telephone survey and had Ladner write up the results: 97.2 of all Oklahoma students couldn’t pass the test to become U.S. citizens (if they were foreign immigrants).
Keep in mind, the questions are about basic U.S. history and government organization — topics that, in theory, should be known to every literate American. And the answers should be fresh on the minds of high school students since they should have studied those topics recently.
The natural inclination is to blame the U.S. education system. But I suspect the problem really lies in a culture that values instant gratification and knowledge by Wikipedia and Google instead of institutional memory and personal exploration with the bedrock principles of U.S. civics.
Posted in: Libertarian values • Schools • Goldwater Institute • Matthew Ladner • Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs • U.S. citizenship | Post a Comment »
September 17th, 2009, 12:08 pm by Le Templar
 Nick Dranias/Goldwater Institute In honor of Constitution Week, the Goldwater Institute has released report that compares the 50 state constitutions to what we usually consider the gold standard. As Goldwater is a think tank devoted to the philosophy of limited government and economic freedom, report author Nick Dranias naturally reviews the state constitutions from that perspective.
In “50 Bright Stars,” Dranias concludes nearly every state has a fundamental document that offers more protections for civic rights and more restrictions on the scope and power of government than is described in the U.S. Constitution or as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. The state constitutions that shine the brightest for freedom are found in Arizona, Alabama, Tennessee and Idaho, Dranias concludes after combining his own analysis with the Mercatus Center’s economic freedom study.
In fact, Arizona ranks first in one of Dranias’ charts that factors in 10 different benchmarks for a classic constitutional republic. That result might be bit of home state bias, as Arizona’s actual score based on Dranias’ analysis was matched by Florida and Louisiana.
Before we puff up our chests too much, Dranias has one, giant caveat — neither state or federal governments really look anything like the limited structures that were envisioned by the framers of the U.S. Constitution in 1787:
“In a very real sense, Arizonans and the residents
of a handful of other states hold the flame
of liberty in their hands — a flame with the
illumination of a match-light, not a torch.
Whether or not we can keep that flame
alive, grow it, and spread its illumination
across the nation depends critically upon
focusing limited resources where they will
have the greatest impact.”
Posted in: Arizona government • Libertarian values • Arizona Constitution • Constitution Day • Goldwater Institute | 1 Comment »
August 21st, 2009, 12:04 pm by Le Templar
 This home serves as a Buddhist temple for a Chandler congregation, but has been forced to close for up to three months by the city (Photo by Matt Pavelek/For the Tribune). Tribune writer Ari Cohn has a troubling story about Chandler coming down extremely hard on a home-based Buddhist temple. A couple of nearby residents apparently don’t like any worshiping going on next door. But most of the neighbors seemed to be primarily concerned about a lack of parking on the street if too many people turned out at once to visit the three Buddhist nuns who hold service here.
The response of Chandler code enforcement: bar any visitors for up to three months and issue a large number of citations for how the nuns are using the house.
Using the zoning code to shut down a business for three months would cripple that business; most never would recover. Does anyone think Chandler would consider taking such drastic action against any business because of a complaint that it didn’t offer enough parking for its customers? Not likely in this economy.
I also have to wonder if Chandler code enforcement has ever swooped down on a popular Bible study session or a Christian revival meeting? Those take place in homes every day.
The federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
is supposed to protect churches and religious centers from excessive government zoning regulations. Perhaps some intervention was needed here, but Chandler’s response was far too heavy-handed.
Unfortunately, the complaining neighbors probably have gotten what they really want, as temple spokesman Dao Chuan told Cohn that the group is searching for a new location. Meanwhile, the temple has arranged for Sunday parking at a nearby public school, and is asking the City Council to approve a special permit so it can open its front door again (the city planning and commission already has given the request an unanimous endorsement).
What a hassle.
Posted in: Libertarian values • Uncategorized • Buddhist temple • Chandler • Churches and zoning | 3 Comments »
August 19th, 2009, 4:25 pm by Le Templar
CNN’s Rick Sanchez landed a lengthy interview yesterday with the man behind the man carrying a AR-15 rifle outside of the Phoenix Convention Center before President Barack Obama’s appearance Monday. Ernie Hancock – Valley radio talk show host, Ron Paul supporter and publisher of a libertarian news Web site — admitted he invited “Chris B.” to join those rallying outside the convention center with the rifle specifically to make a point about gun rights. This should have put an end to a bunch of silly talk about whether Obama somehow was in danger, even through “Chris B.” never was in visual range of the president. Instead, Hancock’s involvement is ratcheting up the conspiracy theories.
First, take a look at the Sanchez video:
Now, pop over to Talking Points Memo and you’ll get a good summary of what the liberal blogosphere is saying about Hancock and the gun incident.
Look, I’m not going to defend some of Hancock’s wilder theories about politics and news events. But I’ve known the man for at least six years. He used to be the producer on a local radio talk show I guest-hosted one day for three hours. Hancock is passionate about defending American liberties as outlined in the U.S. Constitution, and that includes the Second Amendment. He wants to engage the public in debating these issues, and finds unusual ways to do so. He’s not out to hurt anyone.
A reminder, “Chris B.” was acting well within Arizona law and never was stopped or questioned by law enforcement.
This is not the first time Hancock has tested public response to gun rights. In the past, Hancock has gone to government buildings carrying a gun to demand they comply with Arizona law which requires such places to provide a locker for securing weapons, or allow the person to keep the firearm at his side. Once Hancock had made his point, he has walked away, even when it’s clear the government agency is violating the law.
Hancock has gotten what he wanted from Monday’s ploy, even if a lot of the attention has been negative. Now, don’t we have better things to discuss, like the leaked episode of Mad Men?
UPDATE: Travel guide author Arthur Frommer is so frightened by “Chris B.” and others who exercised their Second Amendment rights Monday that he’s now refusing to travel to Arizona, and he’s suggesting others do the same. Does that imply Frommer eventually will have to leave the United States entirely as the Supreme Court continues to expand on its recent ruling that Second Amendment means what it says?
Posted in: Libertarian values • AR-15 • CNN • Ernest Hancock • President Obama • Rick Sanchez | 12 Comments »
July 28th, 2009, 11:53 am by Le Templar
Six Valley imams who were ejected from an U.S. Airways flight, then detained and questioned for hours, have received permission from a federal judge to seek a jury’s ruling on possible violations of their constitutional rights.
The month-old court ruling from U.S. District Court in Minnesota hasn’t attracted nearly as much attention as when the imams and the Council on American-Islamic Relations filed the lawsuit claiming religious discrimination. In November 2006, the imams were removed from a flight before it left for Phoenix after they attended a clerical conference in Minneapolis. The imams were accused of “suspicious behavior” for praying to Allah in the terminal before the flight, for sitting in seats spread throughout the plane, for criticizing the U.S. involvement in Iraq, and for requesting seat belt extenders.
The lawsuit prompted national consternation, in part, because it sought to include other passengers who had reported their suspicions to the flight attendants and the pilot. That was so controversial that Congress passed a law granting immunity to people who report suspicious activity on federally regulated transportation.
U.S. District Judge Ann D. Montgomery said in her ruling that the various circumstances added up to reasonable suspicious about the imams at first glance, but those suspicions should have disappeared after just a few brief questions from law enforcement. The imams never have been considered dangerous by the federal government. They have a right to pray, even in Arabic, and they also can criticize government policies, she said. Most of the imams sat in seats assigned by U.S. Airways (one imam switched seats with a fellow passenger to move closer to a colleague who is completely blind). And while the seat belt extenders possibly could be used as weapons, Montgomery said they are no more dangerous than clothing belts that passengers are routinely allowed to wear on planes (and one of those seat belt extenders was requested by the blind imam, anyway).
For these reasons and technical legal issues, Montgomery dropped U.S. Airways from the lawsuit but will allow the case to go trial against the federal law enforcement agents involved.
“Plaintiffs have presented evidence that could lead a reasonable jury to conclude that they were arrested at least partly on the basis of their race, religion, or national origin,” Montegomery wrote.
The Tribune Editorial Board noted in 2006 that the treatment of the imams was deeply troubling in a nation where people are supposed to be able to worship freely and to speak their minds. I’m still bothered by U.S. Airways’ refusal to accept the imams as passengers after they were cleared of any wrongdoing. But I have to agree with Montgomery that the most egregious conduct was by federal law enforcement, which didn’t release the imams for hours after it should have been clear they weren’t a danger to anyone.
Posted in: Libertarian values • Islam • Minneapolis • U.S. Airways | 5 Comments »
July 21st, 2009, 3:49 pm by Le Templar
 Secretary of State Ken Bennett Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett has released the latest voter registration statistics, and the results should scare the willies out of both Democratic and Republican activists.
The two major parties both basically have the same number of registered voters as they had in April (within a couple of thousand), with Republicans at 1.135 million and Democrats at 1.045 million. But nearly 18,000 new voters registered with nonballot parties or are truly independent, bringing their combined total to 897,989. That’s a 2 percent increase over just three months, a rate that would push the number of independent voters higher than registered Democrats by 2012 if nothing else changed.
To be fair, the two major parties are doing almost no voter recruitment during the summer of an off-election year. But barring some huge shake-up in the political landscape, the number of registered independent voters will move higher than Democrats or Republicans within the next five to 10 years.
At that point, won’t it be impossible for the Democrats and Republicans to maintain the two-party dominance of the Arizona election system? Candidates of the Libertarian and Green parties do automatically get on state ballots now. But their party registrations remain incredibly low because most voters view becoming a Libertarian or a Green as useless; only Republicans and Democrats actually are elected to office. So dissatisfied voters are protesting the present system in droves by registering as “other” instead.
Once those dissatisfied voters make up the largest percentage of registrations, it would seem that Republicans and Democrats will be regarded as representing minority views. Large minorities to be sure, but minorities nonetheless. Won’t voters demand changes to the election process so that candidates are elected who represent “the majority”?
This process likely will be accelerated by a federal court ruling earlier this year that Arizona must make it easier for credible independent and small-party presidential candidates to qualify for the state’s general elections. This crack in two-party control potentially could start a flood.
The Republican and Democratic parties are contributing to this erosion of voter strength by continuing to support Arizona’s open-primary system, which allows independent voters to cast ballots in state primaries of one of those parties. I have pointed out before that open primaries appear to be unconstitutional, but only the Libertarian Party has pursued its rights in court and closed its primaries to outsiders.
Maybe it’s already too late, but Republicans and Democrats likely would encourage more voters to join a major party if their primaries were closed as well.
Posted in: Arizona secretary of state • Election issues • Libertarian values • Arizona voter registration • Ken Bennett | 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 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 »
November 13th, 2008, 11:56 am by Le Templar
REP. JEFF FLAKE IN HIS CONGRESSIONAL OFFICE. (Original photo at americanradioworks.publicradio.org.)
In the aftermath of widespread Republican defeats in this year’s federal elections, Arizona’s own Jeff Flake keeps popping up among a small list of names that party activists and conservative pundits believe are now the future of the GOP. After a Nov. 5 column in the Washington Post, he’s being talked about by everyone from random bloggers to prominent political sites. One Web site even polled 42 conservative bloggers about their favorite Republicans and Flake came in ninth.
Flake’s rise to national prominence continues Friday when he takes part in the 40th anniversary celebration of Reason Foundation, the Los Angeles-based libertarian think tank that sponsors Reason Magazine and Reason.TV. Flake will be the keynote speaker at a Hollywood gala banquet emceed by comedian and “Price is Right” host Drew Carey. It’s safe to say one of these two guys is probably the reason that the banquet and the related two-day conference have been sold out for weeks.
By chance, the Reason Foundation’s top award, “The Flame of Freedom,” will be awarded to two couples — R. David and Judith Threshie and Richard A. and Patricia Wallace. These people have been prominent leaders of Freedom Communications, the Tribune’s parent company, and active supporters of Reason as well. David Threshie is the Freedom board chairman emeritus and a former publisher of the Orange County Register. Richard Wallace recently retired as Freedom vice president of corporate affairs. Judith Threshie and Patricia Wallace are two granddaughters of company founder R.C. Hoiles, and have been active in the family partnership that ultimately owns the private company.
Posted in: Freedom of Information • Libertarian values • Drew Carey • Freedom Communications • Jeff Flake • Reason Foundation | Post a Comment »
|
|
Twitter