Please note that this page is an ARCHIVE of this blog as of April 17, 2006. For the current home page of Geo's Precinct 134, please go HERE.

See you there!

Yours,
Geo

Hope you all had as Happy an Easter as I did!

While there's much still to be done to get the new site up to snuff, some technical issues make it a good idea to go ahead and make the jump to the new home for Geo's Precinct 134.

Namely, it will facilitate creating posts and supporting comments, archives and permalinks. When you're coding a website from scratch, which is what I've been doing for four years, this kind of functionality can become a real challenge to manage. Blogspot makes these things pretty easy to handle, though.

Consequently, this will be the last post to appear on this URL. I have already begun to post to the new site, so please consider going there and updating your blogrolls to link to that new URL. And please be patient with me as I learn how to adapt the css coding of the new Blogger template and clean up the interface.

Of course, this site will remain available as an archive. Thank you for joining me here and coming with me to the new site. I look forward to hearing from you in the comments!

Yours,
Geo

From this article:

"All three candidates in next month's City Council runoff election have spent more on their campaigns than what they would make in a year if they were elected, according to finance reports filed this week.

Council members, who serve four-year terms, are paid $13,500; the mayor, who serves a two-year term, gets $26,500.

Becky Jackson reported spending the most to date - $36,483. Jeff Weninger spent $21,366; Trinity Donovan $16,852.

...Bob Caccamo, who won re-election in the March primary, spent $36,966. Mayor Boyd Dunn, who also won re-election, spent $94,370. Phill Westbrooks lost to Dunn; he spent $87,178."

Update: The Jake Files notes that Councilman Caccamo, in a commentary to the San Tan Sun, has endorsed Trinity Donovan and Jeff Weninger.

From this article: "Chandler's reputation as a shopping hub went up a notch this week when city financial officials reported double-digit sales increases from Chandler Fashion Center, home and office supply stores, restaurants and car dealerships."

With most of this shopping going on in my back yard (CFC is three blocks away), it's the height of convenience. Fortunately, the way the roads have been arranged, our neighborhood is relatively calm.

Plus, I learned from this article that the CFC has 6 a.m. exercise walks. I'll have to look into that when I get back home.

This story in the East Valley Trib notes that municipalities in the East Valley are appealing the U.S. Census population survey that local governments say undercounted their residents. Mesa, Scottsdale, Gilbert and Chandler stand to lose millions in city project funding because the US Census inaccurately reported many homes in those areas as being vacant, officials say. The money, collected from state and local taxes, is apportioned based on population, with each resident being worth $199.36 to the municipality in which they reside.

The cities, via the Maricopa Association of Governments, are therefore pushing for a new county census which could cost up to $7 million, a significant amount, but not as much as what is at stake for the cities if a new census bears out their assertions. The result could be significantly more funding for East Valley cities over the coming five years than they otherwise might have received.

I just hate being a patsy for someone else's bias, however well-intentioned. Nevertheless, I feel it's important to at least hear folks out when they have a serious beef and to investigate things for myself to see whether there is some legitimacy to what they're saying.

And Ray Pilara has a beef, y'all.

I've posted some articles on the Pentz evaluation issue before, but I confess I haven't delved too deeply into the matter before now. So, let's dig into it a bit more and see what's going on, here.

Ray Pilara, a computer specialist living in Chandler (about a mile away from my house), has taken it upon himself to begin exploring the feasibility of a recall against Councilman Sepulveda and Councilman Orlando for their participation in firing City Manager Pentz. Shortly after the results of the Council meeting, Mr. Pilara set up the website www.chandleraz.biz to make his case and solicit emails from potential supporters to a recall action.

On the site, Ray makes his case, by providing background to what he feels caused the whole firing of Pentz - an act of putative "revenge" by Sepulveda, supported by others on the Council:

It seems inappropriate to terminate the City Manager, an "at the pleasure of", employee, by a lame duck Chandler City Council, without just cause. This action gives the appearance of revenge by a disgruntled member or members for whatever reasons they may have. The fact that the City Manager will be provided a severance package, paid by the taxpayers, gives the perception that the member initiating, plus members supporting, this action could care less how our monies are spent (wasted).

It is known that the City Manager serves "at the pleasure of" the Chandler City Council and may be terminated at any time without cause, but the timing is quite questionable. The council has 2 members being replaced and 1 member who has been absent for several months (and is the initiator of this action), thus the question of timing (and revenge) is significant. It seems that any action of this type should be considered only when the new council is in place and the new members, plus the one returning (the initiator), have had time to conscientiously consider the matter.

Even more disconcerting is the fact that the Chandler City Council has paid Ten Thousand dollars ($10,000.00) to an outside consultant to do a performance evaluation of the City Manager, with the results to be provided in May of 2006. It is obvious that any action toward this employee should wait until the results of the performance evaluation are in, have been reviewed and made public. Do you folks care how you spend the taxpayer's money? This is ludicrous!

The member initiating this "time and money-wasting" action should, at a minimum, be censured, more appropriately be recalled (fired)! It's apparent he gets satisfaction by spending taxpayer money on personal vindictive purposes!

Why is this action vindictive? Why is he seeking revenge? The answer to those questions: When this councilman was called to active duty the summer of 2005, there was an issue whether his pay as a councilman be continued while he was absent or not. The city's policy at that time was: no city employee or elected official would continue to receive pay from the city while on active military duty. It is somewhat ironic that he was instrumental in the City of Chandler's adoption of this policy. It seems he became angry when he was on the receiving end of this policy; thus, when the question came to the City Manager about whether or not he should receive pay while on active military duty, the City Manager simply referred to the policy that every other city employee has to follow: no pay by the city while on active military duty. It should be noted that this became such an issue that it again came before the city council and it was voted HE would continue to receive pay from the city while on active duty, overriding the policy that all other city employees live with -> they will NOT be paid by the city while on active military duty!

Speaking of which, the City Council voted unanimously on July 28, 2005 on a process by which to choose a replacement for Sepulveda within two months and invited applications for the position. However, when a September 26th Special Meeting was held (three days before the regularly scheduled meeting) to vote on the replacement, City Council could not decide among the six applicants and, what's more incredible, actually chose to continue to meet as a Council of only six members until Sepulveda's return from Iraq.

Pilara earlier expressed his frustration in a letter to the AZ Republic in March 2006, asking why the Council would not fill a vacancy when it's clearly called for, and repeats those concerns on his new recall website.

But the big issue appears to be Pilara's contention that firing Pentz was a vindictive move by Selpulveda. There has been talk of this before, of course. In an article by Marshall Terrill appearing on Chandler Connection earlier this month (Google cache here), Tillman refers to the friction between Pentz and Sepulveda:

Pentz, who was hired in January 2004 from Rockville, Md., has had a dicey relationship with certain members of the council. Sepulveda, however, said it has nothing to do with personalities but rather performance. A summary of PentzŐs evaluation, which was obtained by the Chandler Connection, shows that Pentz has drawn ratings from superior to unsatisfactory. Sepulveda said Tuesday if you crunch the numbers, Pentz is an average administrator.

"I've added the numbers and on a scale of five, Mark is a 2.85," Sepulveda said. "Now you can argue that 2.85 is almost a three, which is considered satisfactory, but it's still less than a three. That's less than satisfactory." Caccamo said the numbers are skewed by councilmembers who have it in for Pentz.

"If a grader is going to give someone the lowest score possible without an explanation, that evaluation is invalid in my opinion," Caccamo said. "If they applied the same standard to themselves, they would all be rated terribly." Conversely, 18 unidentified city staff members comprised of council appointed officials, executive staff and union presidents gave Pentz much higher marks. Of the 18, five gave him a superior rating, 10 said he exceeded expectations and three gave him a rating of satisfactory. His overall rating among the respondents was 4.1, considered "exceeding expectations."

Respondents listed Pentz's strengths as professional, competent, positive, a strategic thinker and a visionary. Business and community groups also view Pentz positively. However, respondents said he needs to improve his visibility in the community and work on the perception that he does not treat all councilmembers equally and that he is passive with some of them.

I earlier noted that I thought it was inappropriate for members on the Council to address their concerns with Pentz in an open forum at the annual review the way they did. I felt that there should have been more communication with Pentz along the way, and that it not be done in a televised kangaroo court. However, my research of this has brought me to the point that I must retract some of what I said, for three reasons.

1. It appears that there has been significant communication from Sepulveda to Pentz about dissatisfacitons related to Pentz's work and positions prior to the review. This article in the East Valley Trib on April 12, reporting on the evaluation meeting, notes an ongoing frustration between some on the Council and Pentz:

Vice Mayor Phill Westbrooks, along with council members Martin Sepulveda, Donna Wallace and Matt Orlando criticized Pentz for not following through with past council requests.

For example, Sepulveda said Pentz did not provide an audit detailing who was responsible for the city's troubled gas-to-energy program at its landfill.

Pentz said he believed a study recently provided to Sepulveda answered the councilman's questions. He also said city staffers have tried to schedule a meeting with Sepulveda to go over the program, but the councilman has been unavailable.

Sepulveda told Pentz he had problems with the city manager's handling of a proposal for Chandler to join the Williams Gateway Airport Authority and the city's gasto-energy program at the now-closed McQueen Road landfill.

Pentz and other city staff recommended the city not join the Mesa airport authority because of its plans with its own airport. That issue has not yet been decided by the council and is set for discussion in a future meeting.

Orlando, Wallace and Westbrooks said they had concerns with Pentz's demeanor with certain council members, city staff and with members of the public.

3. Mayor Boyd Dunn's proposal to televise the public review - so as to make sure everyone could see what he and two other Council members evidently felt was inappropriate treatment of Pentz - was voted down by the four other Council members.

I'm looking forward to reading the full transcript of the meeting, as soon as it's available. I don't know whether Sepulveda (and/or any of the other three on the Council) was truly motivated by any personal animus against Pentz, or if this is a sincerity in trying to address a problem with Pentz. But no matter what the case with Pentz, this reflects extremely poorly, in my opinion, on BOTH Mayor Dunn and Councilman Sepulveda.

If Mayor Dunn's leadership, communication, mediation and consensus-building is such that this kind of disagreement on the Council blooms up into a full-blown disaster, that surely throws into question his ability to find common ground and lead a City Council constructively to it. Furthermore, it seems to be another significant lapse of judgment and leadership by Mayor Dunn that he would not be able to bring his Council to consensus on a replacement for Sepulveda. As much as I appreciate the sacrifice Sepulveda is making for our country in Iraq, that is no excuse for leaving the Council short-staffed or staffed by members who are absent for months or years and phoning in their votes.

And I generally feel it would have been wiser for Sepulveda to have simply stepped down like a gentleman when he was called to active duty, relinquishing his post here in Chandler for someone else to step in and serve our city. And regardless of Councilman Sepulveda's concerns with Pentz, it seems that he had a tragic inability to address those concerns in a constructive way without seriously polarizing the Council and leading to this schism.

Elected officials like Dunn and Sepulveda are supposed to be better than this. It doesn't matter how much they proclaim their experience in management and leadership on their websites if they botch something so badly when it comes to actually leading and managing. In my own experience in management and serving as Chairman of various committees, I've seen these kind of disagreements arise, yet through sound leadership be transformed into positive opportunities. That is what's supposed to be happening when you elect people to your City Council.

Back to Pilara and his recall proposal, then.

Essentially, Mr. Pilara ascribes uincharitable motives to Sepulveda which simply can't be known. Whether Sepulveda is motivated by "revenge" or if he "gets satisfaction by spending taxpayer money on personal vindictive purposes" is not at all apparent or justifiable as a criticism. Others have made similar accusations, but do not offer compelling evidence, either. Where are the documented statements by Sepulveda that "he is still angry that his pay was stopped when he was called up to serve in Iraq and he wants Mark Pentz's job for doing it"? If Sepulveda had made such statements, then I'd be much more inclined to give credence to a Sepulveda conspiracy theory. But so far, I've only heard conjecture by people who ascribe bad faith to Sepulveda. And I just don't accept that kind of backbiting.

So, Mr. Pilara, while I appreciate your passion and quite agree with you regarding the need to fill vacancies on the Council, I must respectfully reject the unfounded and uncharitable comments relating to Martin Sepulveda's character and motives.

As to the actual merits of Pentz's evaluation, without having read the meeting transcript, I'm reluctant to take a positon. I'm assuming that the arguments will be clearly stated by the various Council members pro and con, and that Pentz will have an opportunity to speak to them. Until then, I reserve judgment on whether Pentz needed to be let go.

Nevertheless, I believe this process was handled extremely ineptly by the City Council, with Mayor Dunn and Councilman Sepulveda bearing the lion's share of the responsibility for a real mess.

Considering the above, I'm going to say that it's unlikely I'll support a recall. However, I would have encouraged finding a replacement for Sepulveda, so our City Council was actually operating at full strength, as it should be, and that we were paying for a Councilman who was actually a fully engaged, present member, per city policy.

And, as a result of this whole mess, I would probably be less inclined to vote for either Martin Sepulveda OR Boyd Dunn for elected office in the future. Trust, once abused, is hard to regain.

Update: Chandler Connection has this detailed article today by Marshall Terrill with more information on the results of the meeting: "Pentz will leave Chandler city manager post on May 1". Lots and lots of bad blood all around. (Sadly, CC doesn't have permalinks, and their articles are vilatile, so I'll edit the link when I find a stable one).

The article has a good detailing of the severance agreement with Pentz, as well as more detail on the concerns with Pentz's performance. Because those concerns are central to this issue, and the article may vanish soon, I'll include them here:

The 56-year-old Pentz indicated to the council that he very much wanted to stay in Chandler, but that four councilmembers - Orlando, Sepulveda, Wallace and Westbrooks - appeared to see his service to the city differently than he did. Pentz requested that his review take place in public in order to hear criticism directly from councilmembers. He got an earful.

The four elected officials said that Pentz mishandled several key issues and was slow and, at times, not forthcoming with information. "There's a perception that there's a personality difference and that's not the case at all," Wallace said. "I think you are a very nice and personable man, but my problem with you is your lack of follow through."

A few councilmembers also intimated that Pentz had a problem with his temper, berating employees who didn't agree with him and raising his voice to councilmembers. Orlando said he had personally spoken to two individuals who claimed that Pentz had raised his voice to them, but did not offer their names when Pentz asked.

Chandler Law Enforcement Association President Paul Babeu said Pentz not only raised his voice to him, but also was very unprofessional when they spoke about a press release CLEA issued in February regarding a lack of law enforcement officials in Chandler. "He was upset and professionally dressed me down," Babeau said. "I felt it was very contentious."

Pentz said that Babeau had sabotaged relationships the city carefully cultivated with union groups and that the press release had blatant misinformation. Dunn scoffed at the notion that Pentz is a "yeller." "I think if Mark were at a football game, I'd doubt if he would yell." Sepulveda said he was sticking to the numbers and pointed to a council matrix of Pentz's performance, which gave him an overall rating of 2.85, which was below satisfactory. "I think there's an acknowledgement here that this is average, and I've just got some issues with this performance," Sepulveda said.

These kinds of situations can be so complex and layered that, though it is in our tendency to want to armchair quarterback the decision, it's next to impossible as a spectator to have a real grasp of the internal dynamics of when a firing becomes advisable, especially when politics are so overtly involved as with a City Council and City Manager. As a result, I doubt that I (and most people) will ever really know whether Pentz needed to be fired or whether the issues could have been worked out. I'll therefore simply rest on my earlier statements, above, regarding the poor handling of this whole thing.

I'm sure we'll hear much more about this in the coming days. However, having now written a novella of my own on the subject I probably won't be revisiting the issue on this blog unless there's some breakthrough news and perhaps link to or post the meeting transcript if and when I can get it.

Update2: Hat tip to Jake once again (who's really been focusing on this issue) for this link to a .pdf of the San Tan Sun article (page 4 of the .pdf) follow-up on the meeting. The following text appears:

However, in a move that Pentz' legal counsel, Lewis and Roca Attorney Richard S. Cohen indicated happens routinely in both the public and private sector, they presented a "separation agreement" that would not only protect the City from potential lawsuits, but also additionally compensate Pentz and extend his time with the city until his resignation on August 1.

"This proposal should be used in its proper context as a last resort," Cohen told the council at about 2:30 a.m. April 11. "We remain hopeful the council will do the right thing and recognize the work Mr. Pentz has done for the city and continue his employment as Chandler city manager."

Sepulveda said the positive remarks were "their perception ...they don't deal with him on the level we do." Sepulveda also charged that Cohen was "taking quite a bit of liberty" with his comments, which included that "one or more members of the Council have developed a hostility toward Mr. Pentz." Sepulveda claimed there was "no hostility" towards Pentz, despite his anger made obvious earlier last August when, while serving in Iraq, his council pay was stopped briefly due to an acting city attorney's advice. Pentz later took responsibility for the error, apologized to Sepulveda and reinstated his council salary. In emails sent to the SanTan Sun News from Wallace, Sepulveda writes, "And yes, I believe that either the Mayor, dumb and dumber or the city manager asked him (the acting city attorney) to 'give' his legal opinion. And yes, I think that all of the above should be made very public. Pretty pathetic isn't it."

Web sites for Chandler City Council candidates Trinity Donovan (here) and Becky Jackson (here).

They'll go into the sidebar along with a new section for Chandler. Candidate Jeff Weninger doesn't appear to have a website - when/if he gets one, I'll post it.

It seems some politicians are simply incapable of coming up with a way to address immigration without botching it badly. First it was Hayworth's borderline racist bellicosity, followed by the House Republicans' bill to make illegal immigrants felons, and now it's AZ Bill 1157, which makes it a misdemeanor crime of criminal trespassing, instead of the civil violation which it is now.

Of course, this is being "tough on crime", right? Right? Well, maybe not. Law enforcement officials throughout the state are slamming this bill as being a monumentally impractical, unfunded mandate. As Jake Jacobsen, president of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, said:

"We don't have enough cops on the streets to handle the problems we've got today, and now they want us to go into the back of Filiberto's and arrest the poor dishwasher while somebody is getting carjacked in the middle of the street?...That's just a bad idea."

It's possible to be all three - tough, wise and compassionate - if you have the courage to do the right thing.

My bet: Napolitano will have the courage to veto this bill.

"Two of the three City Council candidates [Donovan and Weninger] in next month's runoff election say they don't like the way incumbents ousted City Manager Mark Pentz."

Trinity Donovan and Becky Jackson made comments that sound balanced and reasonable. Weninger's "drunk with power" comments are a bit over-the-top, though, and his blanket offer to re-employ Pentz again is both naive and rejects the fact that a separation agreement and buyout has already been agreed to for the manager.

I also have my concerns with the way this was handled. But with all due respect, if Jeff Weninger wants to make inflammatory, demagogic statements about such issues that ignore reality, then he probably shouldn't be serving on Chandler's City Council. Maybe he's just trying to get attention for his campaign, though.

Update: Thanks to The Jake Files, a few more good links on this topic:

The East Valley Trib reports on the whole deal ("Chandler manager bows to council").

AZCentral has a poll (in the left sidebar) asking your opinion on the recent Chandler City Council brouhaha with City Manager Pentz.

Two groups weighing recall of councilmen, here.

The Jake Files has a response from candidate Trinity Donovan on the issue, here. Like Jake, I agree with Trinity that the public review was a thoroughly improper forum in which to handle, for the first time, key concerns Councilmembers may have had with Pentz. I don't know whether their concerns about Pentz are valid (perhaps they are), but my own experience from 15 years in management tells me that this was absolutely the wrong way to handle it.

(And a quick shout out to Jake for his very good coverage of the Chandler City Council / Pentz issue, overall! I'll try not to hold it against him that he hates France...)

An announcement appearing on the GEMDEMS site today:

Greetings East Valley Democrats

Please join District 20 in the Ahwatukee Easter Parade Sat April 15, 2006

Following on Sen. Huppenthal's gutting the Election Integrity Bill SB-1557 in February, it's clear that the Culture of Corruption is alive and well in Arizona.

It seems that these people are never more motivated than when they're protecting their own corruption. This is an outrageous trend of a fundamental lack of integrity and an abdication of responsibility.

We deserve much better than this from our elected representatives, folks.

Some excitement today on the Precinct 134 site: I just received a personal note from Donna Gratehouse, candidate for Arizona State Senator in District 20. Responding to my request for campaign media, she kindly sent me a photo (above) and flyer outlining her impressive background, goals and values.

The text of the flyer, which I repeat in full here, reads:

My name is Donna Gratehouse and I am a candidate for Arizona State Senate in Legislative District 20, running against Senator John Huppenthal. I have been a homeowner in Ahwatukee since 1999. I moved to Arizona in 1997 to start my career at Intel after serving 10 years in the U.S. Navy, where I was stationed stateside and overseas. During my time in the service and my years in this wonderful state, I've learned that while cultures and traditions may differ, people everywhere have the same basic goals in life:

• Providing for their families.

• Maintaining a sense of security.

• Having opportunities to grow and succeed.

I share those values, and I believe that you deserve a State Senator who is in touch with your values.

I support policies to attain educational excellence through attracting and retaining good teachers. I am a strong proponent of voluntary full-day kindergarten.

I support Smart Growth, which encompasses forward-thinking regional planning to anticipate traffic patterns and infrastructure needs, transportation alternatives, and better use of resources.

I support a comprehensive, common-sense strategy to address illegal immigration. Work with federal agencies to strengthen borders. Hold lawbreakers accountable. Work toward economic solutions that reduce Arizona's reliance on undocumented labor.

Volunteer to help me take back our District by contacting me at donnagratehouse [at] yahoo.com.

Thank you, Donna for your swift response and for these materials. I'm looking forward to your developing campaign as our community works with you to bring these goals to fruition!

Update: Until the Gratehouse campaign has an official website, I'll link the campaign graphic in the sidebar to this post.

Harry Mitchell's website is now up!

From a press release today:

TEMPE - U.S. Congressional candidate Harry Mitchell (D-Tempe) today launched his bid to unseat U.S. Rep. J.D. Hayworth, declaring, "This is a campaign for change, and a campaign to restore honesty, integrity and civility to Washington."

Mitchell was joined by more than 150 supporters when he made the announcement at the Harry E. Mitchell Government Center in Tempe, across from a 36-foot statue that also bears his name.

Mitchell said Congress has not addressed issues important to Arizona, and that the state deserves leaders who will work across party lines and put Arizona first.

"In Congress, my first - and only - priority will be Arizona," said Mitchell.

Mitchell said the values of the people in his district are not being represented in Washington. "Like many of you, I believe that in America we can do better, and we deserve better." He added, "Washington politicians seem to care more about becoming celebrities and talking heads than statesmen."

The web site still has some work to be done, but there's good information there. Upcoming events include, at this point, petition-gathering events on Saturday, April 29th at two locations:

Eldorado Park
2311 N. Miller Rd
Scottsdale, AZ 85257
(Legislative district 17)
9 am

Chaparral Park
5401 N. Hayden Rd.
Scottsdale, AZ 85250
(Legislative district 8)
10 am

Get out and help, or sign up on the website to volunteer in some other way! Go Harry!

Update: The Business Journal of Phoenix has an article on Mitchell's announcement, here.

Update2: The Word from Arizona's Fifth District has this entry on Mitchell's announcement, here, with a promise for photos tomorrow!

Frankly, I think it "pops" more than the other ones. And I like that the stars focus on the "US" in Gratehouse's name.

1. "Heated immigration debate wraps up day for state Senate", here.

2. "State senators run their mouths, then run away", here.

3. "Arizona Democratic Party Press Release Catches Hayworth in a Lie", here.

4. "Hayworth on Russert" (very good fisking of Hayworth's dissembling on a variety of points), here.

5. "Right-Wing Radio Host [Bryan James] Advocates Murdering Border Crossers", here.

6. "More than 100,000 rally at Capitol", here.

7. "Railroading by the Chandler City Council". here.

8. "Pederson for Senate campaign goes on TV", here.

Mr. T. over at Wactivist notes that Pederson's first ads aired today. The post links through to the ads on Pederson's website, too, so you can see them for yourselves.

My opinion: they're probably about the best t.v. ads you could ask for - very professional, they strike the right tone and they emphasize the key issues and strengths without being too "folksy" or affected. Senator Kyl has the incumbent's advantage, which is very hard to overcome. But Pederson is looking more and more like a top tier candidate with a good message and a good chance in this race.

It's killing me that I'm not back home for the marches today. But there are some good threads that will be documenting what's going on and I'll post them as they're updated.

We'll start with a very thorough one from AZ Central / AZ Republic. And one from Wactivist. And one from Man Eegee. And one from SpidelBlog.

Meanwhile, Hayworth says this is not a civil rights march.

Update: Evidently, some bigmouthed politicians can't seem to keep from being thoroughly insensitive and inappropriate about this march. State Senator Robert Blendu (R-Litchfield Park), suggests that this march is actually more disruptive than Al Qaeda! Someone needs to educate him on what it means to have perspective. A peaceful, legal, one-day demonstration worse than the 9/11 attacks???

Seriously, Sen. Blendu, you make an absurdly ignorant statement like that and you lose all credibility on both immigration AND homeland security!

(p.s., And on that note, you'll see that I've horked Wactivist's sidebar pics for Napolitano, Goddard and Mitchell's campaigns.)

I've been brainstorming on Gratehouse's announcement that she will run against Huppenthal for the State Senate position in LD-20. As that link to my previous blog entry suggests, it's a tough, tough battle, given the demographics in our district.

Breaking it down, the GOP has a baseline edge of about 15,000 registered voters. Plus, if you surmise that the Independents trend in favor of the GOP in roughly the same proportion as the GOP/Dem registration (i.e., about 3:2), that accounts for another 5,000 added to their edge. (That is, of 25,000 "other", a 3:2 breakdown would be about 15k:10k, not considering minority parties).

So this means that the GOP has a total edge of about 20,000 registered voters in our district. Pretty rough, really. And in a district such as this, it's easy for Dems to feel immobilized by the weight of the resistance against them.

A few other observations: I find it remarkably suspect that Guadalupe 1 and 2 Precincts are cut out of District 20. If one didn't know better, one might say the district map almost looks gerrymandered to carve out a nice GOP-safe district.

In that regard, I notice on the County Recorder maps that Folley precinct is one of the 10 or so (out of about 57) in the district that actually voted between 50-60% in favor of Gore in 2000. No precincts in District 20 have a higher support level for Gore. But Guad 1 and 2 are DEEP BLUE, with between 75-100% (!) Gore support in 2000. You find the same trend on the Tonoho O'odham reservation just across Pecos to the south. This is closely correlated to ethnic minority (Latino and Native American) and relatively lower income in those precincts. Conversely, some of the higher income precincts with less racial diversity are the most intensely Republican in our district.

At any rate, a registered voter edge of 20,000 (in a registered vote base of about 96k voters) in favor of the GOP is an excruciating hurdle to leap. You would have to see a net gain of about 350 Dem voters per precinct to overcome this advantage.

Of course, one of the key reasons to run in District 20 is not only to actually unseat Huppenthal, which seems like an exceedingly long shot at this point. It's also to develop the Dem party in District 20. You can't energize Dems and engage them in precinct activism if you're not fielding a candidate. In this regard, Gratehouse's candidacy is a very positive thing for the District. It may well not lead to a Dem victory this year in the LD-20 Senate race, but it will help to mobilize hundreds, if not thousands, of additional Dems to get to the polls in November, and that will significantly benefit other Dem (and progressive) candidates up and down the ballot. Plus, by sharing Dem values and putting a face and a voice to the important issues, it sets the stage for future Dem precinct development.

All of which means that Gratehouse is already winning a key victory for the D20 Dems. 12:31 p.m. GMT, Monday, April 10, 2006. Permalink.

Whom Would Jesus Bomb?

(Crossposted from my Journal).

Some of the folks who read this journal are not Christians, I realize. And I respect your right to decide how and whether you choose to embrace spirituality, even as I am personally quite convicted of my own faith. And I have a personal journal in which I document my spiritual thoughts, insights and prayers. However, today I felt compelled to write in my online journal about something profoundly on my heart. It is addressed to fellow Christians, but perhaps there is something in it for the rest of you, as well.

On this Palm Sunday, when I commemorated Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem in fulfillment of the prophecies, I was convicted, again, of one of the key lessons of Christ's triumph.

The community Jesus was speaking to believed the new King, the Messiah, would be entering Jerusalem to wage military war against the oppressive Roman occupiers and conquer them by might. Yet the very message of Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem is that Jesus did not come to earth to engage in military warfare, but in a conquest of hearts. His whole strategy was to overthrow the "righteous" self-ascriptions of divine approval based on legalism, and the idea of violence as a means of overcoming evil, and fulfill the old covenant by instituting a new one based not on law or might, but on love.

Jesus spoke so eloquently from the Mount of Olives. That "Sermon on the Mount" is replete with exhortations to meekness, humility, non-violence and peacemaking. Nowhere does He advocate armed resistance as a means to further the will of God. The idea is drawn into sharp contrast when He even prevents Peter from defending Him against those who came to arrest Him, and gave no struggle but went meekly to the cross as a sacrificial lamb.

Yet, well-intentioned Christians, rightfully outraged at evil in the world, seem to be eager to completely overlook Jesus' clear teachings and hearken back, instead, to the righteous anger exhibited by God in the Old Testament as their model for behavior. In doing so, they justify their actions by ascribing to themselves divine approval, when there is nothing in the Gospel that would support that contention and everything that argues against it.

Put bluntly, waging a violent war against an enemy simply isn't Christian.

Now, having said that, I recognize that I fall short of this in my own attitudes. For example, I believe waging World War II was the right thing to do. I've stood in front of the ovens at Dachau and was convicted deeply of how, sometimes, it is necessary to confront evil in this world. But I nevertheless note that this view is not in accordance with what Jesus taught.

Indeed, the Quakers, vaunted for their pacifism, have experienced difficulty reconciling these values, at times. My own ancestor, John Gregg (ca. 1747), was a Quaker in Virginia who took up arms against the British to fight in the Revolutionary War. My research suggests he was kicked out of the Quaker denomination for this action. The armed rebellion against a temporal government is surely not supported by the Gospel, and yet I am pretty confident that, in the same situation, I would have done the same as my forefather.

The problem arises in that most of us, even the most devout and well-intentioned of us, fail to uphold Christian values all the time. Sometimes, they seem just foolish or impractical or irreconcileable with what we feel to be important, such as the need to take up arms against a dread enemy. Sometimes, it's just our own carnality, though. And it's easy to justify, using elegant and impassioned arguments when we do it. "The heart is wicked, who can know it?" Thus asks Scripture, with the understanding into human nature that far exceeds our own. We are subject to all kinds of temptations that lead us astray - lusts of the flesh, pride, jealousy, anger - and those temptations are so much greater when they are supported by the world around us.

Indeed, as we have seen, folks are often much more willing to follow the leading of the world and the agitation of the mob, than follow Christ's teaching. Crass demagogues who are slickly able to appeal to our sense of honor or humanity, for example, can stir us up to acts of patriotic and humanitarian outrage on behalf of their agendas. Indeed, patriotic fervor and humanitarian outrage can serve very positive and constructive goals. But they can also be used as a lever to engage susceptible people into supporting actions which have more to do with mob behavior and crass politics than behavior that is truly inspired by God.

Thus, just as the coarsening of culture becomes a greater temptation for Christians to be carnal, so does a community-borne anger become a greater temptation for Christians to forego Jesus' teachings about peace and humility in favor of the sins of pride and anger and violence. This is fomented by our own innate senses of survival, honor and competition, making non-violence seem somehow weak, soft and dishonorable. Yet, as Jesus indicated, this is a position of strength, supported by the strength of the Holy Spirit and bolstered by the fact that we who are in Christ have nothing to fear and have the glorious richness of His grace, which enables us to be gracious and shine His light to the world.

Sometimes this is done with some of the coldest, most reptilian calculation imaginable. I have long found it horribly amazing, for example, that people who support wars dismiss civilian casualties as "regrettable, but necessary in war". The very idea that someone could espouse actions which would knowingly kill thousands of innocent men, women and children, and continue to do so, and then explain it out of hand as an unfortunate necessity, has got to be something straight from Satan. This is not an idea that in any way is supported by Jesus' teachings or sacrifice.

In this week as we go from Palm Sunday to Good Friday to Easter, we should search our hearts and search Scripture prayerfully. From Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem as foretold in Zechariah 9:9, to the Last Supper, His betrayal, arrest and trial, imprisonment and torture, and final death, burial and resurrection on the cross, it behooves Christians - true Christians who sincerely seek God's face - to explore the deeper meanings of God's intended message through His Son, Jesus Christ. We are called to sanctified living and massive bloodshed in pursuit of our perceived ends has no place in Jesus' teaching.

Peter Mikelic, a Lutheran clergyman, has a similar insight in his recent editorial:

In his Sermon on the Mount, [Jesus] taught active non-violent resistance: "Do not return violence with violence ... but give the other cheek." "Love your enemies; forgive those who wrong you." "Become peacemakers - then you are the children of God."

Good Friday was Jesus' final means of confronting and overcoming the evil of violence without being made over in its likeness.

It was the defeat and transformation of human power and domination, vengeance and war without resorting to these.

It was God's worldwide signal that only peaceful opposition to brute force will change the world and win over hearts and minds.

Good Friday was the decisive denunciation of the entire human system of domination, including its illusionary claims of divine approval and support, its false promises of peace and prosperity, its abuses of power and might in all repugnant forms, its confusion of wealth with happiness, and its claims of definitive wisdom and lasting glory.

Good Friday is Jesus' clear affinity with and care for those who are victimized by violence and war, poverty and hunger, injustice and inequality, suffering and despair, regardless of race or religion.

Tim Wilson is blogging again at The Word From Arizona's Fifth District, putting to rest my concern that he may have been less enthusiastic about the race once King withdrew. I'm very glad, since Tim's insights into the issues and accessibility to the candidates and the locale are pretty good. And as I'm blogging from afar, I'm keen to have his observant eyes and ears on location.

Tim notes that Mitchell is planning to formally announce his candidacy tomorrow Wednesday at 11 a.m. at the Harry Mitchell Government Center and that Tim might make a sacrifice in his studies (finals are coming up soon) to sneak out of class to go get photos. Many thanks, Tim - it would be greatly appreciated!

I donated to King and think he's a fine man and an outstanding Democratic activist. But as you can tell, I'm very excited about Mitchell's candidacy. Ever since I attended college at ASU back in the 80's and lived in a dorm only a block away from Tempe's distinctive inverted-pyramid City Hall (and then Mayor Mitchell's offices), I've known about and have been impressed with this excellent civic leader. As Tim rightly says, Harry Mitchell is the Father of modern Tempe. To see the way he has made an impact on that city, you really have to have known the place 20 years ago. The transformation has been remarkable, and this has been due, to a significant degree, to Mitchell's leadership for the many years he was Mayor. To find out more about Harry Mitchell, check out his Wikipedia entry, here.

I can't wait for him to get geared up into the campaign. This is the classic contest of superficial form (Hayworth) over real substance (Mitchell). Where Hayworth is a slick huckster and a bombastic demagogue, Mitchell is quite the opposite: a kind, gentle man of keen insight and sound judgment, liked by virtually everyone who has ever worked with him.

My confidence in the discernment of the voting majority has not always been rewarded, but in this case, the choice is clearly in favor of Mitchell as the better man.

(Update: Harry Mitchell's proto-website now has a sign-up on the front page, so you can volunteer. I just added my name.)

***

[Speaking of my dorm at ASU, I was in the first group of students to live in the University Towers, at the corner of Forest and 5th, the first year it was opened in Fall of '86. I shared apartment 101 with the RA on the ground floor. Quite an experience. That year, they filmed part of "Campus Man" in our apartment. Heh...I even attended a cattle call for the movie (no, I didn't make it).

The dorm was pretty expensive, though, and as I was putting myself through college, I moved out the following year to Hayden Hall, on the south side of campus, where I saved a lot of money and met some great guys who are still among my closest friends today. Hi Steve and James!]

Wactivist has the low-down on Hayworth's appearance on "Meet The Press" today. It didn't go too well at the end for J.D. as Russert raised a couple of key issues:

Russert: One of the issues that has emerged is your relationship with Jack Abramoff, the Washington lobbyist. The Center for Responsible Politics says youŐre number one in receiving money from Abramoff or his associates. Do you regret having interacted with Abramoff, and will you in fact give all that money back?

...Arizona Republic also pointing out you have a PAC called TEAM set up, raised over $600,000 dollars from special interest groups, many who have legislative interests before your committee, and your wife received over $100,000 dollars, nearly 20 percent of the PAC, in salary.

Video here, click the link to the left of the video frame, interview follows the Kerry interview. Transcript here.

No matter what happens to Pentz, there will be significant fallout for folks on both sides of this issue. Watch for this issue especially to be used against Councilmembers in the next City Council elections.

After being told by all and sundry that they were wrong and that the ELL bill passed by the AZ Legislature is actually NOT in compliance with federal law, they seem to be a little concerned that Judge Rainer Collins will decide that the bill, in fact, is NOT in compliance. So what do they do? Do they, like reasonable people, admit their error and retract their untenable position as befitting mature public servants?

Not these guys! Evidently, to circumvent the courts (not to mention to avoid acting with integrity), Hayworth, at the urging of Horne, has actually authored a bill that simply states that the law is in compliance with federal law. That's great, Hayworth: just redefine reality by legislating that "1+1=3". The mind boggles. More from Tedski, here.

"A simpler solution for Horne would have been to ask his friends at the legislature to pass a bill that actually funded English Language Learning in this state."

I guess it's more accurate to say that Horne isn't confident of his reasoning (and has cause not to be) and wants to circumvent jurisprudence in the courts, whereas Hayworth is basically just acting in his accustomed way. Tedski says it perfectly:

By the way, I've talked to a few people and there is no way that this thing has the time to percolate through the process this session, much less before Collins issues a decision. So, this thing is just a really elaborate press release paid for by you, the taxpayer.

We deserve much, much better from our elected officals. Seriously. I don't care what political party you belong to, but at some point you've got to realize that these men are bad, bad, bad for Arizona. To end this farce, both Hayworth and Horne need to be kicked out of office in November, and we need to elect good people to take their place.

We need to elect people, regardless of political party, that actually put Arizona first. Harry Mitchell and Slade Mead are two superior men of proven competence and integrity and I urge voters to place them in office where they can steer our State back into calm, reasonable waters, away from the reefs and rocks of extremist dogma.

"One: American jobs that will stay in America, using energy independence to generate those jobs.

Two: a strong national defense based on telling the truth to our citizens, our soldiers and our allies.

Three: Honesty and integrity to be restored to government.

Four: A health care system that works for everybody just like they have in 36 other countries.

Five: a strong public education system so we can have optimism and opportunity back in America."

1. AZ election results in 2004, here.

2. VoteTrustUSA article: "Arizona: Senators Call on County Attorney Andy Thomas to Approve Release of Ballots" by Jack Harper, Arizona State Senator - December 08, 2005, here.

3. The Arizona Conservative editorial: "Further Delays in District 20 Election Investigation will Erode Public Trust" - Dec. 23, 2005, here.

4. RecallHuppenthal statement: "Citizens Group to End Effort to Recall Arizona State Senator John Huppenthal", - May 20, 2005, here

1. New law moves city's election date, here.

2. District, league reach accord on ballfields, here.

3. Woman 1st to aid migrants, here.

4. Volunteers save police $374,000 in 2005, here.

5. Passenger flights take off at Williams Gateway, here.

6. Fiesta Towers project finding smooth sailing, here.

As for his extremism, that's been demonstrated time and again. He's a raging Cato-phile social darwinist and is one of the few Representatives in the house that is so extremist that he votes in 100% lockstep with the extreme right-wing agenda. That should tell you something right there...someone who ABSOLUTELY NEVER finds common cause with moderates or centrists, who NEVER finds disagreement with even the most extreme positions of his political ideology, is by definition an extremist.

How, then, does he stay in office when he doesn't reflect the overall moderate attitudes of Arizonans in AZ-5? Well, it's exactly BECAUSE he's an extremist that he garners support in the Republican primaries from the extremely motivated GOP primary voters who participate. This is a common occurrence: political parties tend to favor their more extreme candidates in the primaries, because extremist voters are more likely to vote in primaries than are the moderates. Then, because of the Republican registration advantage in the district, when it comes to the General Election in November, that candidate wins. Relatively fewer moderate Republicans know just how extreme Hayworth actually is, so they vote their party affiliation, and the extremist wins the election, even though the Democratic candidate would have been closer to sharing most voters' own general politically moderate views

It helps Hayworth, too, that he's a truculent and bombastic campaigner and has a verbal skill from his years as a sports announcer. An extremist with a silver tongue, Hayworth is probably the most demagogic candidate to come out of the AZ delegation in...well...I don't know when. I think you'd have to go all the way to Texas' Tom DeLay to find someone who is cut from the same cloth.

It is telling that Hayworth's recent highly-charged invective stirring up racist and xenophobic agitation is simply destructive to our community. Here's someone who should be working hard to bring our community together, to find common ground, not working to sever ties and divide people. We deserve better in a candidate - one who understands the issues and can work on a collaborative solution to address all needs. Hayworth just doesn't get this basic function of servant leadership and, like a bull in a china shop, continues to flail about with his self-righteous pronouncements stirring up hatred and fear for his own self-aggrandizement.

As long as Arizonans blindly vote their party affiliation for this man, not realizing how destructively extremist he is, they will be stuck with someone who does not truly represent their views or who represents our District well. Harry Mitchell - a much-beloved, seriously experienced and wise public servant of many years and with superior giftings from God - is running against Hayworth and I hope my neighbors realize his worth and elect him. Otherwise, the dangers of allowing an extremist like Hayworth continue to "represent" us will continue to undermine our community.

Thank you, Harry Taylor, for reminding us we still live in a free country.

Update: Video interview with Harry the following day, here.

Fantastic!

King had originally said he would drop out if Mitchell joined and then seemed to flip-flop on that promise when Mitchell finally did so. It looks like the reality of who's really viable here has finally clicked. I also note that The Word from Arizona's Fifth District has been suspiciously quiet since Mitchell announced. It was my observationn that Tim Wilson, the student who ran the blog, was a big supporter of King and not all that keen that Mitchell announced. I've heard rumblings of irritation from King supporters that Mitchell even joined the race, blaming DCCC influence and so forth.

In any event, I'm very glad Mitchell is in the race (and I say that as someone who donated to King). Mitchell has a better chance of beating Hayworth than King and we need the best candidate we can field. Hopefully now Mitchell can focus on winning in November and King will get on board and help him do it.

6:06 p.m. GMT, Wednesday, April 5, 2006. Permalink.

In the news today, State Senator Ed Ableser (D-LD17), having stepped into the slot vacated by Harry Mitchell, learns the ropes in his new job.

Also, Chandler's fourth Congress of Neighborhoods met earlier this week to improve communications between the city leaders and service-providers and neighborhood activists.

[Update: And another post notes how the WSJ says that some members of the AZ Congressional delegation could be a positive influence in helping conservatives get back on track. "Funny, Rep. J.D. 'Whatever It Takes' Hayworth's over-the-top anti-immigration-mongering isn't mentioned as a possible winning strategy for the GOP."]

[Update 2: Speaking of Hayworth, he recently received a zero rating from an anti-war group.]

I was hoping to be able to correspond with someone rather more in depth, but perhaps he's really busy. Of course, District 20 is more heavily Republican, so there is a larger volunteer pool and likely more people to help the GOP organization in the District.

All the more reason for me to help out the Dems when I get back home.

And where McCain used to be opposed to a Federal Marriage Amendment because it was "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans," he now assures Falwell he would support one!? Is the Republican party TRULY in such flux that less than 2 years later, what was antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of the Republican party is NOW in agreement with Republican principles? Or has McCain shifted 180-degrees in his view on this issue in just two years? Or is he just telling the right-wing of his party what they want to hear so he can secure the nomination for President?

This raises some serious questions of integrity: What does McCain really believe and can we trust him anymore when he says it?

As for the timing of his departure, three observations:

1. With Rudy's plea bargain, I suspect that DeLay saw his inner circle breached and very rough waters, including a possible conviction, in his future.

2. By withdrawing now, he can petition the FEC to apply his campaign fund, a warchest of about $1.3 million as of February, to use as a defense fund in any upcoing trial. Cunningham (who is a criminal) did the same thing recently. By dropping out of the race before the campaign for the General election heats up, DeLay's warchest is at its largest.

3. Lampson stood to win in the General, especially because there are other Indies running and the General only requires a plurality, not a majority, to win. However, by resigning in a few months, DeLay can trigger the necessity of a Special Election to replace him. Lampson is unlikely to be able to pull over 50% in the Republican strong TX-22. And if he does, he'll have to fight the fight all over again in November.

My prediction: TX-22 will stay red unless Lampson campaigns improbably well.

Now that Bush has come out with the exhortation to play nice in this debate, it seems to be the moral high ground du jour for blowhard politicians who have built their careers on their mouth and their righteous indignation.

Without repeating Hayworth's litany of indignation here, I'll just say it's more of the kind of thing you'll find in his recent book, in which he equates Mexican politicians who favor open borders with, yes, radical Islamists. The result is yet another small monument to disgraceful politics, a sepulchre thinly whitewashed with quasi-acceptable, nationalistic umbrage.

C'est la civilitude, non?

At the bottom of the web page, it says "Arizona District 20 Democrats - Not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.- Copyright © 2005. All rights reserved". The site looks like it hasn't been updated since September 2005 and most of the links in the sidebar give 404 errors. It also appears to have come on the scene in about May of 2005 (based on the earliest calendar I ferreted out).

So, a mystery to solve! It may well be that this site was put together by someone unconnected with the Dem leadership. A whois lookup shows that the site is hosted by GoDaddy and is registered privately via DomainsByProxy.com out of Scottsdale, so no help there. It did indicate a one-year registration, so the site may evaporate this Fall. Scoping out the source code for the site shows in the header info the meta tags for the author: {meta Name="author" content="Katherine Ingram"}. Okay, so Katherine Ingram put this site together (maybe).

According to the "About Us" page, which is one of the few pages that does work on the site, the following were the officers (and their phone numebrs and email addresses are provided):

District Chair: Michael Williams
[Update: more about him here.] 1st Vice-Chair: "Dave"
2nd Vice-Chair: Frieda Pollock
Treasurer: David Goldwin
Secretary: Tom L. Williams

I thought perhaps one of those other three folks might be a neighbor I could chat with, in case Michael Williams wasn't able to get back in touch. So I scoped them out using the reverse Yellow Pages.

There is no Frieda "Pollock" listed for that phone number, but an F Pollack is listed. I figure it's just a typo. F Pollack is on Kyrene, not too far from my place (perhaps three miles away). Her website with resume is here. Unfortunately she's not in my precinct. David Goldwin lives on the south side of South Mountain, in Phoenix, near Chandler and 24th Street. (County Assessor says it's a nice house, too.) This Google cache shows he was the East Valley chairman for John Kerry for President. Tom Williams lives near 32nd St. and Pecos.

Very well, so I tried tracking down "Katherine Ingram", the putative author of the website. Again, the County Assessor notes a Katherine M. Ingram in Chandler, about 2-1/2 miles away from me (still not in Precinct 134). No guarantee it's the same Katherine, though.

But we're not stopping there! Researching Katherine a bit more gives a lot of links - she's been active - such as this page at AZ-Vote.com, which notes she won the Volunteer of the Month for July 2005 (perhaps in part for her work outlined on this page). And this page, which indicates she is (or was) a student programmer at the UAT at ASU. And this page on the DFA site indicates she was an attendee of the DFA Training Academy last month. Which is great - seems like she's still around.

Now, if I had anything to say about it, I might recommend she or someone else update the old D20Dems web site or, if not, at least scrub it and bounce-refer people to the GEMDEMS site. It makes kind of a bad impression, otherwise.

Donna Gratehouse, 37, of Ahwatukee Foothills, and her supporters are gathering signatures to get her name on the ballot for the race in District 20. The district includes Ahwatukee and parts of west Chandler and south Tempe.

"I just could not allow Senator Huppenthal to go unchallenged," said Gratehouse, who got involved in politics during Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign in 2004.

...Political consultant Doug Cole, who is also chairman of the Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee, has his doubts.

"That's a pretty steep hill to climb," he said of the disparity. "It's a pretty active Republican vote base."

As of Jan. 1 in the district, the Arizona secretary of state recorded 27,104 Democrats, 42,362 Republicans and 25,390 "other," which include independents but not Libertarians. In Ahwatukee, Cole said, independents tend to vote Republican.

I'd not heard of Donna Gratehouse before now so I did a little more research. The article above says Gratehouse got involved in Dem politics during Kerry's run in '04. From this web page, Donna evidently was the "Chair, PC Recruitment for District 20" as of June 2005 (scroll down page). This page notes that she is also running as a Clean Elections candidate. This page notes a speech she gave on Feb 27th, 2006 at the Phoenix/Scottsdale NOW on women's candidacies. On page 2 of this .pdf guide to hosting Democratic candidate Larry King's house parties, Donna is listed as his campaign's House Party Coordinator, with a phone number given. Finally, from the County Assessor's records, Donna bought her home in the Ahwatukee Foothills as a single woman in June 1999.

Meanwhile, Huppenthal "the workhorse" continues a prolific year of legislation.

Clifton Bennett, son of Arizona Senate President, Ken Bennett will serve no jail time for sodomizing 18 boys at a summer camp with flashlights and broomsticks if Yavapai County prosecutors have their way."

[A] Hilliard [Ohio] man had been indicted in January 2004 on 20 counts of rape and two counts of gross sexual imposition involving a 12-year-old boy and a 5-year-old boy. Franklin County prosecutors ultimately charged Selva with two counts each of rape and engaging in unlawful sexual conduct. Under a plea agreement with the prosecutor's office, Selva pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual battery, a lesser crime that does not require prison but can carry a maximum sentence of five years."

I'm only now getting used to the idea that other people might actually see this blog. I guess I'm going to have to start paying better attention to what I write from now on. :)

One of the Representatives in that district (just to the north of ours) is Laura Knaperek (R-LD17). Lofty Donky notes:

Knaperek happens to be chair of the Universities, Community Colleges and Technology and Appropriations (P) Subcommittee on Higher Education Funding committees. Now, wouldn't you think that the person that heads both legislative committees pertaining to higher education would perhaps have had some higher education? Not if you are a member of the Republican party, who ignore higher education so much that they don't even bother trying to find someone with a college degree to determine what students and universities need.

But don't worry, according to her legislative bio, "She is enrolled in the University of Phoenix."

I lament the sad state of the world and politics in general when it puts people like this in charge of things they are obviously, crucially unqualified to do. I would, that is, if I hadn't become so numb to the practice from the past few years of seeing how the Bush administration has done it time and again. I've seen such nepotism and cronyism in business, too, to a lesser degree.

Well, I'm one who firmly believes it's not necessary to have higher education to be remarkably intelligent and insightful and wise. Having been around people who have their law degrees and academic doctorates who are, charitably speaking, about as wise as a bag of hammers, I readily champion people who have keen insight, have taught themselves and exhibit wisdom who have NOT received formal, higher education. I know a lot of them. But I wouldn't put them in charge of a committee to determine funding and strategic legislative planning for universities and colleges, because they'd simply have little, if any, of the relevant experience that would likely help make their efforts most effective.

As for the identity theft error Knaperek made, anyone can get scammed. There are some pretty crafty criminals out there and it's easy to fall prey to their elaborate schemes. But, in addition to Knaperek's being seemingly blatantly unqualified for her committee roles, there's something quite alarming about a State Legislator who is the chair of a couple of key technology committees and who is specifically working on drafting identity-theft legislation getting taken in by one of the simplest and most common identity theft phishing scams being used today. As she, herself, said, she of all people should have been the last to be duped.

1. J.D.'s new book gets its first review. It's not pretty.

Though Hayworth may indeed be a "plain-talking, guts-up conservative" in the eyes of Sean Hannity, the American people may find it difficult to divine the true "hard truth" in a book where thinly veiled xenophobia and poor research replace serious thinking.

Whatever It Takes is a poorly written tirade against immigration in particular and, more widely, against diversity and multiculturalism in America as a whole. It is filled with anti-immigrant propaganda and selective statistical evidence. Hayworth relinquishes his own immigrant past and condemns not only undocumented immigrants, but also their American-born children.

...Hayworth's excessively colloquial, home-style approach and his use of trite analogies (he goes as far as to liken the immigration system to a football stadium during Super Bowl Sunday) largely undermine the intelligence of his readership and vastly oversimplify the complexity of fixing a broken immigration system. Far from revealing 'hard truths,' Hayworth tries to prompt a gut reaction against immigration, appealing to the worst impulses of exclusion.

Rep. J.D. Hayworth of Arizona and others said Republicans would pay a price in the midterm elections if they vote for anything like the Senate legislation. "Many of those who have stood for the Republican Party for the last decade are not only angry. They will be absent in November," he said.

And in a couple of other posts from Wactivist.com related to the AZ LD-20 race, Harry Mitchell gets an article in Congressional Quarterly.

"Locals don't seem all that abashed about the shrines to Mitchell, a city councilman and mayor for 20 years and a legislator since 1999 - who just last week announced he was quitting the state Senate for his bid to oust Hayward [sic] after a dozen years."

Brilliant defense, Hupe. Brilliant.

I'm not sure which is more disturbing: that our district's Senator, who is also the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is (1) unwise enough to be speeding in a zone that eveybody and his brother now knows is being monitored by photoradar, (2) unprincipled enough to try to avoid accountability under the law or (3) uninsightful enough to suggest it to a room full of police and prosecutors.

At least his "I had it on cruise control" defense is uncontaminated by originality. I wonder if he was laughed down by his audience when he said this.

This isn't specifically related to Precinct 134, but I just have to note it here. I've been following for the past 24 hours the furor related to Howard Kaloogian, candidate running for US Congress in CA-50, to take over the disgraced criminal Cunningham's seat. One would hope the Republicans would want to field a replacement that has somewhat more integrity.

Evidently, Kaloogian is a (neo)conservative Republican candidate, and is in pretty tight with Bush and others who are backing his campaign. Despite that, he's only running at about 12% support, with Francine Busby (D) garnering about 45% in a crowded field of candidates. Kaloogian is repeating the "War on Journalism" mantra of some in the Bush Admin, suggesting that things aren't so bad in Iraq, and it only seems that way because journalists are reporting the bombings and the mass executions by death squads and so forth, and not showing how really peaceful the place is.

Now, consider: 1. As has been noted, both the civil wars in Algeria and in El Salvador average fewer deaths-per-day due to internecine violence than Iraq is currently experiencing. So we already know the country is experiencing serious violence that exceeds at least the average rate of deaths of other conflicts we've already recognized as civil wars.

And consider: 2. As was pointed out in that article, a civil war doesn't mean that there are NEVER momentary lulls of peace in a given neighborhood.

Nevertheless, Kaloogian posted on his campaign website a photo of a peaceful city street which he claimed to be in Baghdad and was "evidence" of how things are much calmer there than the journalists were reporting. In fact, his whole trip was billed as a "Truth"-finding mission with the troops. However, it was demonstrated by quick-witted bloggers that the photo is a NOT from Baghdad, but from Istanbul, Turkey.

So, in addition to the two problems with the general premise I just mentioned, there are THREE MORE problems with what Kaloogian did:

3) The photo tries to argue away the specific evidence we have of death counts in Iraq, which clearly puts the lie to Kaloogian's thesis from the outset,
4) A picture of one isolated city street in Baghdad wouldn't actually indicate the violence going on elsewhere in the city or country even at that very moment, and
5) As it happens, the photo he provided as his "evidence" isn't even taken from Baghdad!

Okay, so the blogosphere and other media outlets have been on fire for the last 24 hours because of this. But let's give Kaloogian the benefit of the doubt. What does he say was the explanation? He says that some of his staffers stopped off in Turkey on their trip and snapped the photo and it got mixed up with the others when the webmaster posted it. Fair enough. There have been serious questions as to whether such a layover would have been feasible, given the security restrictions for passengers of military aircraft, but let's give Kaloogian the benefit of the doubt here again. The campaign then posted what they said was another photo of Baghdad, showing how safe the streets were.

In doing so, Kaloogian digs his hole deeper, though. Because, again, some quick-witted bloggers have discovered three MORE problems with Kaloogian's new "corrected" photo:

6. It's taken from the comfort of a room high in the Hotel Rashid and not out on those "safe and calm" streets,
7. The Hotel Rashid is IN THE GREEN ZONE, the only area of Baghdad actually "controlled" by US forces,
8. And is far too high up and far away from the streets to actually see what might be going on in them. You could have a rampaging mob wielding AK-47s roaming through the very streets below and the photo wouldn't show it.

One can only imagine that Kaloogian must have desperately wanted there to be photographic proof that the violence wasn't so bad, so approved posting a photo from his collection showing a nice, calm street, thinking it would support his argument. The photo turns out to be of Istanbul, Turkey, so they scramble to find one of, you know, Baghdad. And the best one they can find is one taken from the security of their hotel room in the heart of the Green Zone, because it's unlikely they actually spent much, if any, time at all strolling the streets.

So it's pretty bad for Kaloogian, all the way around, right? But wait! It gets worse! How could it get worse, you ask? Well, in the photo he finally posted which is too far away from the streets to actually show people, there is one notable feature you CAN make out: a police station. Leading to yet another problem for Kaloogian's argument (and character):

9. The same police station was blown to bits by insurgents after Kaloogian's visit.

Which, I guess, is pretty good evidence for arguing exactly the opposite point of what Kaloogian was desperately trying to make. It's pretty sad when the best evidence you can find to support your harebrained thesis actually destroys your whole premise. In actuality, journalists are being pretty accurate when they report that the violence in Iraq is massive and when people like Kaloogian try to argue otherwise, they're being, essentially, dishonest.

What will come of Kaloogian's brazen display of his lack of integrity? Perhaps nothing, given that some base of radical fringe that probably supports the man may care less about his lack of integrity than simply having their man win. Sadly, there are no laws against intentionally lying to mislead people in an election or using our troops' efforts and sacrifices as fodder for your personal political ends. (Which, by the way, he does again by displaying a photo of him attending a meeting of the CENTCOM PAO under his "Trip to Iraq", when actually the CENTCOM meeting was in Florida.)

Finally, there are other laws that may be involved here. What, you say, can this guy sink lower? Evidently, yes. It seems that Kaloogian, in an effort to bolster his chickenhawk image, has a couple of photos of him meeting military officers. Which, by allowing Kaloogian to use those photos in his campaign site, means that those officers are in violation of the Hatch Act which prohibits such endorsements. Unless they aren't aware that Kaloogian is doing this, in which case he's legally jeopardizing those officers without their knowledge.

This is what's called a meltdown for a candidate, or a trainwreck, if you prefer. This is clearly a lack of integrity on Kaloogian's part. That's bad enough and reason alone to show him as unfit for public office. But what really steams me about all of this nonsense is this:

Our troops are fighting a violent war of great sacrifice in which many, MANY THOUSANDS of them have been killed and maimed. DOZENS of Iraqis are being slaughtered EVERY DAY by al Qaeda suicide bombers, Sunni insurgents and Shiite death squads. Yet Kaloogian wants to paint it as a calm and peaceful venue because it helps his political ambitions. He wants to pose next to our gallant soldiers who are fighting this war so as to have some of their heroism rub off on him (jeopardizing them legally in the process), and then turns around and stabs them in the back by telling people back home that it's not really all that bad over there. That's just insulting and damaging to our troops and insulting to our intelligence.

All I can say is, if this whole deal is ANY indication of the man's sense of integrity, then voters need to run as fast as they can from him because he's like kryptonite to Truth.

And I won't delve into why a California Republican candidate for Congress is allowed military transport to Iraq and access to the troops for a photo opportunity in the middle of a war, and access to CENTCOM briefings, when he's not even an elected official, but I'm sure readers can formulate their own thoughts on that. Politics is like that, sometimes.

[Update at 9 p.m. GMT, Thursday, March 30, 2006: It seems that Kaloogian has been hammered pretty seriously by a number of blogs and media outlets on this and has taken his website down (except for his "Contribution" links, natch). He has also distributed a Press Release accusing the watchdogs that called him out, esentially, America-haters. See more here. And warm greetings and welcome to the new visitors here from the San Diego Political Blog!]

[Update at 9:06 p.m. GMT, Saturday, April 1, 2006: Two of the people Kaloogian has referenced on his website, one via quotes and another with a photo, in order to imply their endorsement of his candidacy, have come out and said they certainly DO NOT endorse him. Evidently, we have a candidate in Kaloogian who is seriously, pathologically incapable of being truthful.]

On March 28, 1969, one of our greatest Presidents passed away after a lifetime of service to his country.

Dwight David Eisenhower was no stranger to war, and met the challenges of being tough when it came to national defense and security, but he was also the very epitome of the compassionate conservatism. A Republican president with a lifetime of unsurpassed military experience in war and peacetime, he pushed for the expansion of Social Security and warned of how the buildup of the military-industrial complex would eventually overtake and undermine our country's politics. President Eisenhower is one of the modern presidents I would most wish to emulate if I ever were in the White House.

In memoriam, here is an excerpt of my favorite speech by Ike, from his famous "Cross of Iron" address:

"What can the world, or any nation in it, hope for if no t