I don’t know why the president has taken his family with him while he is conducting serious business during these hard economic times. It seems unseemly that he would pile this unnecessary expense on American taxpayers who are struggling to keep their own heads above water, along with most of the rest of the world wallowing in recession. At a time when the president is suffering a drop in approval by the American people due to scandals that are severely tainting their trust in him, you would think his wife would not want to project a “Marie Antoinette, ‘Let them eat cake” vision to stoke the fires.

  Michele once famously said – after her husband became the first black nominee for the presidency – that “For the first time in my life I am proud to be an American.” Since I was first old enough to be aware of the presidency, I have lived through 11 other presidencies, along with Bess, Mamie, Jackie, Lady Bird, Pat, Betty, Rosalynn, Nancy, Barbara, Hillary and Laura. I’m sorry to say that, for the first time in my life, I am embarrassed by an American First Lady.

I’m as cynical as they come but I thought that was nice. And look, I’m not opposed to bipartisanship on principle. This is for the simple reason that it is not a principle. It is neither a value nor a policy position either. Like its cousin “compromise” it is a strategy, a tactic or tool that can sometimes produce a good result, as we saw with Arizona’s Medicaid expansion (or restoration of what we had before, if you prefer). Other times the result is not so good. Deregulation of the financial markets, the Patriot Act, the Iraq invasion, and the sequester were all bipartisan. So color me unimpressed with bipartisanship’s overall record of success in the past couple of decades. But some do place a high premium on parties working together and feel that bipartisanship is key to getting the most optimal legislation with the least strife. Both President Obama and my Congresswoman, Kyrsten Sinema, seem to favor the approach whenever possible. Bipartisanship polls very well with voters too.

The current configuration of the Arizona Legislature is undoubtedly better, due to having some more Democrats in each chamber than last session, when the GOP had veto-proof majorities in both chambers. I do think it’s premature and misguided to take the Governor’s Medicaid stance and the defection of some Republican lawmakers to her side as some sign of a brighter and more moderate future. Those rogue Republicans have not turned into moderates, and they demonstrated as much immediately after the Medicaid vote to join their colleagues in voting for a voter suppression bill aimed at Democratic voters. So no, I wouldn’t be singing kumbaya just yet. Those who face a real primary threat have all of next session to get back in the good graces of primary voters. And if bipartisanship is your thing, note that out of 282 bills sent to the Governor’s desk, a mere five were prime sponsored by Democrats. That’s not very bipartisan, is it?

So how to get to the magical state of bipartisanship longed for by so many in Arizona? Hmm, that’s a toughie… Oh right, elect more Democrats and have them take over at least one chamber. The Senate seems to be the most feasible. I’d prefer Dem majorities all around (because there’s no evidence from blue states that Dems go ideologically cuckoo when they run things) but at least with a split body we would see some sanity. Yes, maybe gridlock too but even that beats the flurry of lousy legislation we’ve been getting the past few years.

I admire guys that can make a good living by being adept at skills like plumbing, electrician, mechanic, etc.  They can look at something mechanical and figure it out instantly and get paid nicely for their skills.

Although I might have pursued one of those professions, I was not blessed with the ability or patience to perform those tasks.  However, I was fortunate enough to possess the gift of gab which allowed me to make a comfortable living as a commission salesman.

College was a necessity for me or I would not have been hired for my first job as a salesman for Lever Brothers Company.  They did not care what my degree was in; they just wanted me to know some multi-syllable words, wear a suit, and be able to sell.    For that I received a company car and $225 per week.  Who would have thought selling Dove soap and Close-Up toothpaste could be so lucrative!

The key words above are “college was a necessity.”  In that area, I was financially lucky unlike the kids today.  My college years were from 1965-1969 and with the GI Bill, a part time job, and my wife’s teaching salary during the last two years, I had zero debt when I donned my cap and gown. Two months later, I had the Lever job.

Today, college costs are skyrocketing and there is a shortage of jobs.  Kids will never pay off their gigantic loans.  I did a column a few years ago about college tuition and found that ASU had per hour costs in the $450 range.  I wonder how many resided in their parent’s basements facing that!  The most I ever paid for a full load was $300 for a semester.

Why have these costs soared?  Average tuition at public four-year colleges rose 73 percent from 1999 to 2009, even as median family income fell about 7 percent.  Contributing factors included state budget cuts which caused colleges to raise tuition; a gradual shift of responsibility for payment from government to students; and a “seller’s market” in which colleges can raise tuition without repercussions. 

Add to that other factors like alumni who want new stadiums and good football teams; faculty wanting good salaries and a low teaching load; and students who want nice dorms and facilities – all things that cost money.

The good news is that there is a possible silver lining.  A study by Georgetown University shows that a college educated person will probably make $1 million more than a high school grad over a lifetime.  Get a masters and its $1.3 million.  More good news:  The Brookings Institute says that while college costs are 50% higher than thirty years ago, the lifetime earnings with a degree are 75% higher than without a degree.  Add that to the possibility of marrying someone who already has money and you can throw away all that Top Ramen you bought on sale to get you through the winter quarter!

Good luck to the 2013 graduates!

(Some information courtesy Amanda Paulson, The Christian Science Monitor.)

Meese was the Attorney General at the time of the infamous 1986 “Reagan amnesty” bill. There has been a lot of blather from Karl Rove and others about how different today’s bill is from the disastrous 1986 law, which resulted in a quadrupling in the number of illegal immigrants.

But Meese crossed them up. He read the bill. That’s the way we used to do it, he dryly pointed out. What he found was quite different from what we’re being told by today’s advocates.

In fact, Meese said the Gang of Eight Bill contains “pretty much the same penalties and hurdles” as the 1986 legislation. Congress should learn the obvious lesson: bending the rule of law winds up incentivizing millions more to risk entering the country illegally in the hope of being in on the next amnesty.

Meese chides today’s lawmakers for not reading bills and relying on the characterizations of others. But I thought the cool thing was that Meese admitted the good intentions of the Reagan administration ended in failure. He didn’t try to sugarcoat it or justify his involvement other than pointing out that Reagan was at least honest in using the word “amnesty”.

Today’s spinmeisters use euphemisms like “pathway to citizenship” and “comprehensive reform” to describe exactly the same thing. Meese obviously knows what he is talking about. We should listen to him.

- he would be applauded by the House of Representatives for preventing terrorism through phone and internet surveillance;

- he would present CIA-produced evidence that Hillary Clinton was responsible for the Benghazi murders;

- he would by now have intervened in Syria, possibly with boots on the ground (gotta get Al-Quaida); and

- the rollback of Obamacare would have begun by an order to Health and Human Services to thwart Medicaid expansion and stop setting up Health Insurance Exchanges.

Thank you, American electorate!

You can post comments to my blogs (and see stuff that might have been censored out) by clicking on the “Leave a Comment” link or on http://www.bododiehn.net/hello-world/ , and I will reply publicly (where called for) as soon as I can.

In this one you can see Dranias whining about the Voting Rights Act and affirmative action:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Here’s more whining about states rights:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This one’s fun to watch for the side-eye Dranias is getting from the rest of the panel:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Yeah, you can see how Scalia’s shocking remarks about “racial entitlement” didn’t come out of a vacuum. Voting rights got a shot in the arm with today’s SCOTUS 7-2 decision striking down Prop 200, Arizona’s 2004 law requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration. But the other pending decision, on Section 5 of the VRA, is not looking so hopeful. Arizona conservatives and the Goldwater Institute have been gunning for it for years. From a GI press release in 2009:

Phoenix–The Goldwater Institute filed an amicus brief yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder. The brief challenges the Voting Rights Act “preclearance” requirement under the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection and the 10th Amendment’s guarantee of federalism.

Preclearance requires Arizona and a handful of other states to seek permission from the federal government for legislative redistricting. To guarantee federal approval, states have often resorted to gerrymandering–drawing oddly-shaped voting districts to pull minorities from some locations and pack them into others. Preclearance has thereby pervasively promoted race consciousness and minority political segregation as a means of enforcing equal voting rights–just as affirmative action enforces race-consciousness purportedly as a means of remedying racism.

“Now that active state-sponsored racial discrimination has obviously waned, preclearance only encases politics in the very racial and ethnic divisions it was designed to prevent,” said Nick Dranias, counsel of record and Director of the Goldwater Institute’s Center for Constitutional Government.

When the Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965, preclearance may have been the only feasible means by which equal voting rights could be enforced. But the days of the literacy test are long over. Minority political progress is no longer “modest and spotty,” as asserted by the Court nearly 30 years ago in City of Rome v. U. S. Pretending otherwise is not the product of what the Supreme Court called “practical experience” when it first upheld preclearance nearly 50 years ago in South Carolina v. Katzenbach.

I honestly think they spout this stuff as much in an effort to reassure themselves they’re not defending racist policies as to convince everyone else of that.

So how’s he a loser as a result of the Court ruling the Arizona voting law to be unconstitutional?

He helped write the law, the same one that — not surprisingly — Kansas also has (you can read about it here).

In fact, Kobach is 0 for 2 in recent Supreme Court decisions, having had almost all of the Kobach-written SB 1070 struck down by the Court last year.

From the penthouse to the outhouse.  That’s been the recent trajectory of the immigration hardliners.  Whether it’s Kobach being slapped in the face by the Court, Russell Pearce dumped on not once but twice by voters, or Arpaio now on a federal government leash, our anti-illegal immigration all-stars are increasingly has-beens.

About time.

Magdi Ahmad Hussein, Chairman

Isamic Labor Party, Egypt

  Why was this prominent Egyptian politician, who did not realize that the meeting was public and being broadcast, encourage such secrecy?  In order to not endanger the military foreign aid his “enemy” – the United States – is currently supplying to his country, of course. President Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood dominated government has recently decided that it is not illegal for Egyptian militants to wage war outside the country, as well. Syria is now becoming a training ground for young fanatics of Islam. No wonder Israel is worried as U.S. foreign policy and commitment to its allies becomes more and more suspect. How long before those newly delivered fighter aircraft are turned against our own interests?

Admittedly, fiscal conservatives were put in a tough spot by the clever move the Obamacare folks pulled off. States had to turn down a ton of short-term federal money to avoid expanding their already swollen Medicaid rolls. In every state,that meant disappointing your supporters in the hospital/healthcare communities and inviting media scorn. It was still the right thing to do but, as Trent Franks and others pointed out, giving in was in some sense understandable.

But Brewer disgracefully went far beyond reluctant acquiescence. She didn’t agree, with regret, to sign a bill placed on her desk. Instead, she poured her political heart and soul into a tough battle, giving Obamacare a lifeline. .She threatened, she vetoed and, yes, she bullied. Several national commentators were appalled at the extraordinary measures she took to get her way. No governor of either party went so far in the cause of Obamacare’s Medicaid expansions.

Why did she do it? Who cares, really. She seems to think this will be her legacy and she’s probably right.

But there’s no way to sugarcoat it. Just one person rolled her own parties legislative delegation to give life to Obamacare at a time when a serious blow could have been struck. She greatly expanded the welfare state and left to future policymakers the hard questions of how to fund it, when the federal support diminishes. She single-handedly added to the federal debt.

Little things like Limited Government and Personal Responsibility were conveniently dismissed when, you know, money was on the table. So much for the dignity of states in the federal system. See you around, healthcare freedom.

Yep, that’s quite a legacy. At least Democrats are happy.

Flake the Elder has apologized for his son’s comments, saying, “This language is unacceptable, anywhere. Needless to say, I’ve already spoken with him about this, he has apologized, and I apologize as well.”

Not enough for some, however.  ”Some” being, in this case, the Rev. Jarrett Maupin.  Self-declared civil rights figure.  More accurately described as race baiter.

Maupin has weighed into the issue (the Republic has a story about it here):

“I saw his apology — I do not accept that apology on my own behalf nor do I accept it on be­half of the community,” Mau­pin said. “The only way we’re going to get through this is if we have a candid dialogue with him. We need to see some atonement before there can be some reconciliation.”

Of course.  Atonement.  Because?  Well, the good reverend has more to say:

“Unless he’s attending ju­nior neo-Nazi meetings in the East Valley, I’m guessing he picked this up around the din­ner table.”

Yep.  Flake Junior’s picking up his racism at the table of Flake Senior.

The same Flake Senior that Maupin has defended in the past (here).  Against charges of racism.  Wherein he attacks Democrats for?  What else?

“Attacking Flake’s record is understandable, acceptable and anticipated, but it cannot be the soul and substance of the race for one of Arizona’s Senate seats. Especially if it includes the devious use of racially charged allegations by white Democrat leaders who have yet to muster a serious commitment for or real plan to improve the lives of black Arizonans.”

Hmmm, hmmm, let’s see, “devious use of racially charged allegations,” eh?

Maybe like some the Rev. Maupin’s employed here?

Or maybe like the ones he did in his past, repeatedly making unfounded charges that were race-based?

For those of you newer to the Valley, the Rev. is an Al Sharpton protege, earlier sporting the Sharpton bouffant hairdo and spouting the Sharpton race baiting demagoguery.

And  guy who was convicted for lying to the FBI.  About former Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon.  One of Maupin’s political rivals.

Maupin here is trying once again to somehow make himself relevant.

Good try, Jarrett, but maybe you should spend more time ministering to your flock.  And by “flock,” I don’t mean the media.

Here’s Trent Franks sounding Akin-ish today:

“Before, when my friends on the left side of the aisle here tried to make rape and incest the subject — because, you know, the incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low,” Franks said.

Franks continued: “But when you make that exception, there’s usually a requirement to report the rape within 48 hours. And in this case that’s impossible because this is in the sixth month of gestation. And that’s what completely negates and vitiates the purpose for such an amendment.”

Let me begin by addressing the second part of that statement. I suppose in Franks’ fantasy world there are no situations where a woman is trapped in an abusive situation by threats or perhaps literally being held against her will. But those things do happen, all the time. So it is not inconceivable that a rape or incest victim would seek an abortion later in the pregnancy than typical. As to the first part, WaPo says that Franks “sought to clarify” his remark and now claims he was only talking about late term pregnancies and wasn’t claiming that rape rarely results in pregnancy. I’m not buying it. They sound and read as two discrete statements, linked by “but when you make that exception”. Even under the most charitable reading of his statement, there was no reason for Franks to press the point of the rareness of rape pregnancy other than keeping that idea out there.

Sadly, he’s never going be the GOP Senate candidate and he represents a lily-white district where the median age is about 87, so he’s not going anywhere for awhile.

 That’s a question civil libertarians would want us to ponder every day.

 And recently, more of us have.  After all, with the revelations of the IRS screening Tea Party groups and the Justice Department investigating AP reporters, some of us remember the days of the Nixon’s enemies list and J. Edgar Hoover’s trampling of civil rights.

 And now, we have the latest intrusion in our privacy, the monitoring of phone calls and internet activity.

 For many, Ben Franklin’s warning becomes even more relevant, and possibly for good reason:

 “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary  safety deserve neither liberty or safety.”

 Of course, when we examine the context of Franklin’s comment, we see that he isn’t speaking at all of the tension between freedom and security.  In fact, Franklin was arguing for the right of the Pennsylvania Assembly to levy a tax to pay for the French and Indian War.

 Nevertheless, Americans treasure our independence. and our right to privacy might be the best example of that independence.   We don’t want our government snooping on us, unless it has gone through all kinds of legal hoops to justify doing so.  When we hear of the massive collection of phone calls made and received and the observing of internet activity,  we naturally have the reaction of “That’s a bridge too far.” 

 But is it?

 Our government’s one big task is to protect us, “to provide for the common defense.” Today, the common defense is against a shadow enemy, one the Founders could never dream of fighting, the dedicated jihadists, intent on inflicting as much damage on the West as they possibly can.

 And how do those jihadists communicate?  The answer’s obvious.

 So what should our government do? 

 The balance between freedom and security in the time of war seems to be difficult to find.  Just think of the Japanese internment camps of World War II, designed to ensure our security but tramping the rights of innocent Japanese-Americans in doing so.  The abuse there is breathtakingly obscene.

 But is it so here?  I’m not so sure.  Which is why Edward Snowden might have done us a favor.

 I’m not sure he’s any sort of hero, but his actions have — with any luck — precipitated a public discussion of just how far we want our government to go in protecting us.

 The phone call monitoring doesn’t  monitor the actual calls themselves; instead, it compiles who is called, when and from where.  The system then uses complex algorithms to detect anything suspicious.  To actually access calls or tap phones, then, the government must get permission.  The phone companies in question, as I write, are requesting the government release just how often this happens, in the belief that the number might calm our fears of Big Brother Run Amuck..

 And the internet monitoring,  PRISM?  It does, after all, look at emails, chats and search histories of “non-U.S. persons located outside of the United States.”  At the same time, the NSA admits that information about U.S. citizens might be “incidentally acquired.”

 Thanks to a 2008 revision in the law, desired by the Bush national security team,  the surveillance powers were exponentially expanded.

 Little of this was made public, of course.  But it’s there now.  And now, we need a sober discussion of programs like PRISM and the phone monitoring.

 But will we?  I have my doubts, in this heated, every-issue-is-a-partisan-one atmosphere, where too politicians seem more intent on scoring political points than solving problems.

 In the horror after 9/11, our government restricted our freedoms, restrictions most of us reluctantly agreed to.  Would we do the same today, given the privacy invasions of the latest programs used to fight Muslim terrorists?

 A careful public discussion would give us an answer.  Let’s have it.

PROVISIONS
· Allows the Director and any duly designated employee or agent of the Director, including county health representatives and county or municipal fire inspectors, consistent with standard medical practices, to enter on and into the premises of any abortion clinic that is licensed or required to be licensed during regular business hours of the abortion clinic, subject to a determination by the Director that there is reasonable cause to believe an abortion clinic is not adhering to the licensing requirements of statute or any other law or regulation concerning abortion.
Ø Stipulates that the purpose of this is to determine the state of compliance with statute, the rules adopted pursuant to statute, local fire ordinances or rules and any other law or regulation concerning abortion.

· Specifies that any application for licensure constitutes permission for and complete acquiescence in any entry or inspection of the premises during the pendency of the application and, if licensed, during the term of the license.

· Permits the Director to take action authorized by statute if an inspection reveals that the abortion clinic is not adhering to the licensing requirements established pursuant to statute or any other law or regulation concerning abortion.

· Stipulates that any abortion clinic whose license has been suspended or revoked in accordance with statute is subject to inspection on application for relicensure or reinstatement of license.

· Requires health care facilities that perform abortions to report to ADHS whether health care services are provided to AHCCCS members.

· Prohibits all contractors and noncontracting AHCCCS providers from performing non-federally qualified abortions on currently enrolled members to whom they provide other services covered under this chapter.
Ø This requirement does not apply to contractors and noncontracting providers that only perform abortions to currently enrolled members through an affiliated entity that is separate from the entity that provides services pursuant to this chapter.

· Specifies that Medicaid funds must not be used to perform, assist or encourage abortion or to directly or indirectly subsidize abortion services or administrative expenses relating to abortions or to refer for abortions except as required by federal or state law.
Ø Administrative expenses include rent, employee salaries, utilities and similar overhead costs.

I understand from Twitter there’s a floor amendment that waters this down, but I don’t know who offered it and what it says so let’s just talk about this striker language as is.

Right wingers, despite how they rail against the evils of da big gubmint, are actually quite well represented among the ranks of government employees. We learned recently the guy heading the Cleveland IRS office at the center of the “scandal” the GOP is a-froth over describes himself as a conservative Republican. In a state like Arizona, where our all our branches of government have been (mostly) GOP-controlled for decades the likelihood that a plurality of people working for the state in various functions hold very right wing views on culture issues is pretty high. Authoritarians love to be in (surprise!) positions of authority. This means that there are bound to be some Todd Akin-types among the directors, inspectors, etc., who would be itching to barge into abortion clinics under whatever pretext Cathi Herrod pulls out of her ass. So this needs to be stopped.

The second aspect of the bill is yet another attempt to cut Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood, which will not hold up in court.

What is “it”?

Cluelessness or venality, of course.

Kavanagh has led the charge in the House against Medicaid expansion, making sure that his Appropriations Committee deep-sixed (at least temporarily)  the Medicaid expansion that had passed out of the Senate.

Why?

Costs  too much.  Can’t trust the Feds.  The usual.  Of course, he didn’t actually address the provisions the bill has in place to keep costs down and to end the program if the Feds don’t pony up the promised money.

Ignoring those protections and the expanded coverage for what, about 400,000 poor folks currently without insurance, many of whom use our hospital emergency rooms as their primary care centers, often coming into those ER’s with more acute medical problems than they would have had they been able to access care earlier.  Like with insurance.  Which would provide primary care.  And save us money.  Something Kavanagh is always concerned with.

Except in other cases.  Like abortion.  When life is the most vital concern.

Because Kavanagh’s Appropriations Committee also voted on an abortion bill, one that would provide for unannounced inspections of abortion clinics.

And with that issue, money-conscious Kavanagh became “Life is paramount” Kavanagh, issuing this little nugget of cluelessness or venality:

“Those of us that do not support abortion believe it is a human being, and everything we do is to protect a human being.”

Yes, Rep. Kavanagh, “everything we do is to protect a human being.”  

Unless, of course, the human being is out of the womb.

In which case, the health of that human is second to costs.  Even if the costs are in fact savings.

Idiot or hypocrite.  You make the call.

Then what does appear to be their primary aim?  To me it seems clear that the Republican-controlled House considers nothing more important than to smear the President and his administration, much as he will not be running again.

Let’s review the issues laid, rightly or wrongly, at the feet of the President:

There’s first, and most appropriately, the special scrutiny given to Tea Party affiliates by the IRS when they applied for tax-exempt status.  This was clearly wrong, but cannot be blamed on Obama as since Tricky Dick Nixon’s time, the President is by law forbidden to have any contact with the IRS.  And why, pray tell, would  non-profit organization need a special tax status anyway?  If my for-profit company does not make any profit, it does not pay any tax (surprise?).

Second and third, there are the collections of “metadata” of phone calls of basically anyone and the survey of net traffic by foreigners.  Both of these activities were inaugurated under President Bush, and moreover approved by federal judges and communicated to Congress.  It takes a person who questions the motives of all three branches of government to get upset at this.

That leaves the “Benghazi” non-issue, desperately kept alive by the Republicans who fear a 2016 run for the Presidency by Hillary Clinton. 

You can post comments to my blogs (and see stuff that might have been censored out) by clicking on the “Leave a Comment” link or on http://www.bododiehn.net/hello-world/ , and I will reply publicly (where called for) as soon as I can.

  In his book, “Bailout”, Neil Barofsky, the initial Special Inspector General for TARP (SIGTARP), tells us that nearly every department of the government was opposed to the creation of that office, including the Secretary of Treasury Geithner, in whose department SIGTARP resided. “Why?” you may ask. Barofsky explains that the various departments complained that they had their own IGs and a Special IG for the bailout funds wasn’t needed. Luckily, some powerful Senators and Congressmen felt otherwise and demanded SIGTARP be included in the bailout bill. Much to the chagrin of many departments and the Obama administration, Barofsky, a Democrat, proved to be too independent to be bribed (with offers of loftier positions in government) intimidated or threatened – he was a respected and successful career lawyer who dealt in corruption in business before taking the job and was assured that his future in government work would be over if he didn’t “go along to get along.” Unable to completely stop the corruption of TARP funds, in many cases Barofsky and his team saved the American taxpayer billions of dollars by exposing attempted fraud and waste and by putting forth recommendations for regulation and rules to guide the flow of hundreds of billions of dollars being pushed out government coffers. His successor, Christy Romero, is still fighting the good fight to un-entwine the major banks who were complicit in the financial collapse. This is the purpose of government IGs, to maintain oversight over the departments to assure the public trust is not abused by ferreting out gross mismanagement, fraud, incompetence and willful malfeasance.

  The Inspector General Act was passed in 1978 and there are currently supposed to be 73 Inspectors General in the federal system. According to a Wall Street Journal article, many of the most important IGs mandated by Congress are not in place. Since taking office, president Obama has neglected to fill IG slots for the departments of State, Interior, Labor, Homeland Security, Defense and the Agency for International Development. Coincidentally, major scandals (Fast and Furious, Black Panther voter intimidation, Benghazi, illegal Labor decisions) have erupted in the absence of IG oversight. Without an IG, the current IRS scandal – the targeting and attempted silencing of various opposition groups to administration policies by harassment, intimidation and illegal release of donor and member names to groups friendly to the administration – would be continuing full scale. As I write this, our esteemed U.S. Attorney General is investigating himself for his department’s targeting of news organizations and reporters in an assault on our First Amendment rights.

  In the case of the State Department, Hillary Clinton, for four years, has had former Ambassador Harold Geisel serving the function of IG, although he could not officially hold the title. The former IG
 for State departed in 2008. The Vacancies Act stipulates that vacancies should be filled within 210 days. Geisel is ineligible because of “an explicit, congressionally mandated safeguard for IG independence that rules out ‘…a career member of the Foreign Service.” And for good reason. One of the jobs of an IG is to protect “whistle-blowers”, a critical source of suspected wrong-doing. But when Greg Hicks, second-in-command under Ambassador Stevens during the attack on the Ambassador’s compound in Libya, and two others at State, raised questions concerning the lack of security and non-reaction to save the survivors of the attack – with the subsequent loss of life of Stevens and three other Americans –  he was warned to shut up. He was told by his superiors at State that “he should not proceed” with his questions”, was given a “blistering critique” and demoted. Geisel did nothing.

  So why would the president not be in love with the idea of Inspectors General whose job is to keep department heads on their toes? IGs whose job is to keep him informed as to whether or not his administration is functioning in a manner that upholds both the law and the spirit of the Constitution? A close look at the current scandals gives a possible answer. If there is no Inspector General to officially inform him, a president can plead ignorance in case the scandals come too close to his doorstep. He can blithely carry on, “hearing, seeing and, therefore, speaking no evil” – a very common defense for this president.

Let me give you just three examples out of my personal experience:  I had a tuxedo made in Shanghai and had negotiated a firm price.  When it came to paying, the tailor simply set his own exchange rate for the dollar to extract more money.  In Hong Kong, we contracted for a 30-minute harbor tour in a motorized sampan.  After 20 minutes, the driver declared the tour over and unceremoniously returned us to shore.  As a third example, we ate in a restaurant, with prices clearly marked on the menu.  When we were finished, the bill contained a 30% surcharge, and suddenly everyone no longer understood English.

I assure you that the Chinese have absolutely no respect for, or understanding of fair business practices, and I am not surprised that it extends to intellectual property.  This is ingrained and will be slow to change (just look at their internal scandals!).  They will continue to try and steal our business and military secrets, and the only recourse the U.S. has is a vigorous defense coupled with cyber-counterattacks.

You can post comments to my blogs (and see stuff that might have been censored out) by clicking on the “Leave a Comment” link or on http://www.bododiehn.net/hello-world/ , and I will reply publicly (where called for) as soon as I can.

A few random observations:

I can’t estimate crowds to save my life but I’ll take a stab there were around 150 people there, some of whom had been bused in.

Lila Rose, who is supposedly an aspiring actress, is a very attractive and charismatic woman in person – eerily confident and self-possessed. In other words, a slick con artist. Yes, you can be both a true believer and a con artist. They are not mutually exclusive qualities.

Cathi Herrod is clearly not happy about her 20 week abortion bill being overturned by the court. But it is equally clear that she is not giving up. Every time I go to one of these anti-choice events my understanding that these people are deadly serious is strongly reinforced. Democrats who still insist on treating reproductive rights as secondary issue that only riles up a few hysterical feminists need to wise the hell up and pay attention.

Senator Nancy Barto told the crowd that she got her start in activism in the anti-abortion cause that wanting to end abortion was one of the main factors in her decision to run for office. The same is true of a bunch of conservative Republicans currently holding office in Arizona and all over the country. Again, Democrats who downplay this issue might want to consider how terrifyingly successful anti-choice Republicans have been at not only peeling back abortion access but in getting themselves elected and proceeding to do their level best to ruin the state with their other nutty ideas. Stop being so goddamn timid about using this as a campaign issue.

There was a woman in the crowd sitting under a big umbrella holding a sign that said “The Pill Kills”. A reminder that they are after our birth control too.

One of the speakers was a woman who regretted the abortion she had. A mother of five, she told a dubious sob story of being pressured by Planned Parenthood to abort the pregnancy because it was her sixth. She claimed she was presented with no other options by the clinic and that the doctor refused to let her see the ultrasound. I’m not buying it. There were some women behind her holding signs that say “I regret my abortion”. I love how the only women who are able to proclaim publicly they had abortions without risking vicious harassment are the ones who now regret it and want to deny a procedure that they took advantage to other women. Screw them. Seriously, if you regret your abortion there are several things you can do about it that I would respect but one of them is definitely not “join a movement seeking to turn doctors and women into criminals while taking away birth control and teaching abstinence-only sex ed”. I felt like going up to one of the regretful women and asking if she would turn herself in to go to jail if abortion becomes illegal.

There were at least five Arizona legislators there (that I recognize) and I don’t think one of them supports the Medicaid expansion. Which really puts the lie to all the blather I heard at the rally about “cherishing life”.

Recently, the great Jean Stapleton, who played Edith to Carroll O’Connor’s Archie Bunker on “All in the Family” from 1971 to 1979, died at age 90.  Edith the “dingbat” will be missed.

“All in the Family” existed in an era when people didn’t take themselves as seriously as they do now.  The 60’s had just ended, disco was starting its popularity, and guys like Archie Bunker were a relief after years of enduring the rural humor of shows like “The Beverly Hillbillies”.

Few cared about the silly political correctness we tolerate now as Edith was always the foil while Archie was the one who ruled the house.  Edith’s idea of an exciting day was when a friend figured out the date code on the supermarket’s eggs.   She was the personification of the term “housewife”.

O’Connor as Archie was so over the top with his right wing stances and malaprops that audiences loved it and enjoyed the support of a fine cast that included Rob Reiner as “Meathead” and Sally Struthers as Archie’s daughter Gloria.  Nothing was sacred whether Archie was arguing with Reiner over some liberal political issue or with black neighbor George Jefferson over a racial issue.  It was all for laughs with Archie usually looking foolish.

“All in the Family” was rated number one for its first five seasons and was never lower than 12^th. Today, it would fail.  Archie’s comments would never work in our overly sensitive society where illegal immigrants are “undocumented workers”, a bum is a “homeless person”, and The Founding Fathers are “The Founders.”  We must not hurt anybody’s feelings, especially the ladies, by implying that the “Fathers” were men; that would be sexist with today’s mentality.  

In 1973, the military draft was discontinued.  I think it was a mistake since asking young guys to serve two years minimal in the military was not asking too much in return for living in the greatest country in the world.  A lot of guys living comfortable lives at home got a taste of what the real world was about and wound up better for it.

I was 6-4, weighed 170 pounds and wore glasses when I went to Air Force basic training at age 20.  My sergeant delighted in calling me “four eyes” and “seal beams” not to mention asking “How’s the weather up there, son?”  I don’t think Sarge cared about my “feelings” or “political correctness” as his job was to prepare me for a four year hitch in the military. Today, a kid would probably call his congressman to complain.

Archie would cringe at adults being expected to apologize for the slightest little thing they say considered as “hurtful” or “inappropriate”.  This was a typical exchange between Archie and liberal daughter Gloria:

Gloria:  “Do you know that sixty percent of all deaths in America are caused by guns?”

Archie:  “Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows?”

Well, Gloria.  Would it?

“We live in a culture that’s awash in sexual activity,” he said. Sexual images, he said, are sold on bases or off base but nearby. “It creates some problems, I think.”

Remember that wingnuts have great difficulty distinguishing consensual sexytimes from rape which is why they are forever doing things like redefining rape in Congressional bills. These are not people you should trust with “exceptions for rape and incest” (looking at you, Jeff Flake) and, sadly, they are proving themselves to be largely worthless in addressing rape in the military. Thank goodness for the lady Senators on the panel.

Sen. Saxby Chamblis was there as well.

“The young folks who are coming into each of your services are anywhere from 17 to 22 or 23. Gee whiz, the hormone level created by nature sets in place the possibility for these types of things to occur. So we’ve got to be very careful how we address it on our side,”

Rachel Maddow was on this, providing several examples of sexual assaults committed by service members in their 40s and over. Chambliss also repeated a ridiculous claim that was common when I served in the Navy 20 years ago.

The Georgia Republican recalled that “several years ago when we had the first females go out on an aircraft carrier, when they returned to port, a significant percentage of those females were pregnant.”

Women had already been serving alongside men on tender ships for years prior to the integration of destroyers and carriers in the early 90s. Yes, there were, and are, hookups and relationships among some of the sailors, as is bound to occur when young adults are put together in an environment. Yes, a handful of pregnancies will occur on long deployments. But “a significant percentage”? Urban legend. But once again, here’s a conservative confused about the difference between consensual sex and rape. I don’t even know what to say about Chambliss’ expressing the desire that all pregnant servicewomen should have the circumstances of their pregnancies investigated. Yowie.

Worth noting is how Sessions and Chambliss seem to be unaware of the existence of male sexual assault victims. Let’s just let that speak for itself. Also worth noting is how Sen. John McCain showed real leadership at the hearing. He didn’t spin stupid theories about rape but instead expressed outrage about the incidence of assault and a commitment to dealing with it. Unfortunately, he followed that up by saying that women shouldn’t join the military.

Ladies got special GOP attention on Tuesday at another hearing. An all-male panel in the House moved Trent Franks’ signature bill (about guess what?) forward.

All six Republicans on the panel voted in favor of the amendment to expand the bill nationwide. They argued that fetuses can feel pain after 20 weeks of pregnancy, a claim that is medically disputed, and suggested that the Supreme Court might eventually come around to their side on the abortion issue. Franks challenged the notion that his bill is part of what the Democrats have called a Republican “war on women.”

Late-term abortions “have been happening hundreds of times every single day for decades in America,” he said. “Those who incomprehensibly call trying to change this a ‘war on women’ overlook the fact that roughly half of these babies that are so torturously killed each day are just little tiny women.”

I want to soak my brain in Clorox nearly every time I read something that guy says. Franks and the rest of the Republicans on the panel are on record wanting women with hopelessly deformed fetuses to be forced to give birth to them. No exceptions for the woman’s health in the bill either, since they know bitches be lying all the time about their “health” to get those sweet late term abortions.

Finally, Republican Governor Phil Bryant of Mississippi was taking place in one of those corporate/media education reform thingies when he was asked why the state of American education was so “mediocre”. Because ladies, duh.

“Do you want me to tell the truth?” he asked at a Washington Post Live panel. The downward slide began when “both parents started working, and the mom is in the work place.” (It’s a very common arrangement these days.) He added that while it is not a mother’s responsibility to teach children to read, both parents used to have more free time to spend with children.

That Republican outreach to women is going really well.

Pierces “aw shucks, it ain’t nothing, I’m just doing my job” was unctuous, at least to me. His job is to expand the welfare state and put his state in future financial jeopardy?

He takes objecton to the fact that the opponents of Medicaid expansion were characterized in some quarters as “courageous”. He broadly implies that his stand was the one that took real courage.

Let’s see, now. Some legislators took a stand based on their professed principles (the same principles Pierce once claimed) and they tried to protect our state from being devastated by the future cost of “free” healthcare, already the fastest growing part of the budget. They did this in spite of the opposition of the ever expanding, powerful hospital industry, the business community that is part of their political base, the opposition of the governor, the mainstream media and even conservative icons quoted by Pierce like Kevin McCarthy and Fife Symington.

Sounds like courage to me, at least as politicians use the word.

As usual with “pragmatists” who badly want the short term cash, Pierce didn’t bother to rebut the opponents’ best arguments, like the temporary nature of the federal “help”, the sorry history of state/federal partnerships and, most particularly, the fact that the federal money is borrowed, would not go to other states if we don’t take it but could be used to directly reduce the federal debt.

Pierce wrote that “political courage is standing by your convictions and values”. He should listen to his own advice.

As the paper noted this morning, the state House, along party lines, passed SB 1363, which expands the voucher program called Empowerment Scholarship Funds.

With the changes, more kids in public schools will qualify for these accounts, the funding from which can be used to offset tuitions to private schools.  Or for tutoring. 

But parents can pocket the money each year for . . . their kids’ future college tuition.  Or fees.  Or books.

Here’s what the law says:

4.  Use the money deposited in the qualified student’s Arizona empowerment scholarship account only for the following expenses of the qualified student:

(i)  Tuition or fees at an eligible postsecondary institution.

(j)  Textbooks required by an eligible postsecondary institution

Yep, potentially kids who have done nothing to deserve a scholarship will receive funding that is tantamount to a scholarship.  Lots of money.  The law requires that each eligible student receive “ninety per cent of THE SUM OF the base support level AND ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE prescribed in section 15‑943 15‑185 for that particular student IF THAT STUDENT WERE ATTENDING A CHARTER SCHOOL.”  For each year the student participates in the program.  

And the program now allows kids as young as kindergarten to participate.

Which means?  Millions of our tax funds could be used to pay for undeserving kids getting college scholarships.

All thanks to our legislature’s desire for “choice.”

Who knew we had no choice but to give these kids a free ride to college?

The media mouthpieces for those folks mimic that behavior with their coverage of whatever scandal is de jour.  You can rest assured that the serious issue are buried in an avalanche of overreaction:  ANYTHING I DISAGREE WITH IS A SCANDAL!

The Republic’s Doug MacEachern — who sometimes delves into the ALL CAPS world of hysteria — points out a great example of it in today’s paper:

“I love the Wall Street Journal’s Dorothy Rabinowitz … almost always. Years ago, she fearlessly exposed the national psychosis about child molesters running day-care centers. But her recent anti-bicycle rant is not her best moment. Rabinowitz is furious with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s new rent-a-bike program, claiming bikes are a great hazard. Well, yeah. Life in the city is a hazard. Take the WSJ point of view on this one, Dorothy: It gives New Yorkers transportation choice.”

Boy, oh boy, is Doug understating this one.

Rabinowitz — as much a partisan hack as any on the partisan hacky WSJ editorial board — is featured in a video editorial, prodded along by another Journal employee.

It looks like satire, feels like satire, sounds like satire . . . until you realize that nope, Dorothy really does believe that New York’s bike share program is some nefarious BIG BROTHER ENCROACHING ON OUR FREEDOM!!!

In fact, the program is run by, in Rabinowitz’s delicate phrase — “totalitarians,”  including the “ideology maddened” traffic commissioner in cahoots with the “all-powerful bike lobby.”

All powerful bike lobby?   Who knew?

The best neighborhoods, according to our rabid Rabinowitz, are “begrimed” by these bikes.  And the narrator piles on, falsely claiming the bike racks block fire departments from subway entrances.

You can watch the about six minute rant here.

Our maddened commentator — in  purely partisan hackery — conveniently forgets that bad bike riding has been a hallmark of Manhattan and surrounding burrows for decades.  When I visited New York in the early ’80′s, bike riders were a daily hazard as I made my way around Queens and midtown.

Yep, the gargantuan  bike lobby forms an unholy alliance with the totalitarians dictating our behavior to create a deadly dangerous bike sharing program.

The Silly Season is ENDLESS!!!!

Rose was raised in San Jose, California, the third of eight children of an engineer at Sun Microsystems.[1] She was home-schooled through to the end of high school, and was a history major at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).[1] Rose was raised Protestant and converted to Catholicism.[6]

Rose founded the pro-life group Live Action when she was 15 and continued her activism at UCLA.[7] Rose has attended workshops at the conservative, non-profit Leadership Institute.[3] In 2009, as an invited speaker at the Values Voters Summit, she suggested that abortions should be performed in the public square until the “public tired of seeing them and did away with the injustice altogether.”

So she’s nice. Rose is a pal of James O’Keefe, a conservative operative famous for smearing liberal organizations and people by secretly videotaping them and then deceptively editing the videos. Rose does the same thing with Planned Parenthood and abortion clinics. Hopefully soon she’ll mess up and meet the same legal fate O’Keefe has.

As you might imaginge, Rose is a national anti-choice hero. So of course the Center for Arizona Policy is aflutter with excitement that Lila will be appearing at a rally in Phoenix on Thursday.

CAP – Live Action Rally

Family Planning Associates Medical Group 1331 N 7th Street, Phoenix, AZ

Stop the Killing Rally
June 6th, 2013 @ 12:00 p.m.

Live Action and Center for Arizona Policy will be hosting a rally outside of the Phoenix abortion clinic, Family Planning Associates, to discuss the findings of Live Action’s latest investigation into the abortion industry. We will come together with state lawmakers to call for true protection and empowerment of women.

Speakers include:
Lila Rose, Live Action
Cathi Herrod, Center for Arizona Policy
Melanie Pritchard, Foundation for Life and Love
Vanessa Tedesco, Silent No More

Click here to RSVP for the Rally!
RSVP’s are not required to attend.

Rose’s “investigation” is a pile of made-up hooey involving a pregnant woman going undercover to a Phoenix clinic and asking what would happen in the event of a fetus being “born alive” during an abortion. It’s a scenario about as likely as me voting for Trent Franks.

Rose’s vision of protection and empowerment of women came to the fore recently when a Huffington Post reporter asked about the case of the Salvadoran woman known only as Beatriz, who is facing death due to pregnancy complications in a country where abortion is nearly completely illegal.

…But Lila Rose, president of the anti-abortion activist group Live Action, said the case has not convinced her that abortion should be allowed under any circumstances.

“We can do better than pitting the life of a mother against her child,” she told The Huffington Post in an interview on Friday. “Abortions are never medically necessary. Some doctors prescribe abortion as if it’s a treatment for a disease or a problem, but that’s not a solution a truly compassionate and just society should turn to.”

Rose is a 24 year old with no medical expertise that I’m aware of and when presented with evidence that, despite medical advances, women can and do die from giving birth, Lila does the predictable anti-choice sidestep of shifting the discussion to something else. In this case she employs a twisted kind of utilitarianism to justify allowing some unfortunate women to die rather than allowing them to terminate a pregnancy.

Rose said the consequences of abortion are worse than the consequences of requiring women to continue their pregnancies. “Think about what a late-term abortion does to a woman,” she said. “We can do better than pitting the life of a mother against her child.”

Isn’t that special? I’m planning to observe the event and maybe I’ll catch one of the legislators there to ask if they agree with Rose on the Beatriz case. Because I’m guessing a lot, if not all of them, agree with her. Even if they don’t, the lip service they pay to exceptions for the life of the mother don’t mean much anyway. Put another way, imagine facing death from your pregnancy going and the person in charge of deciding if you get one of those abortion exceptions is someone like Lila Rose. If she makes a mistake, she gets to bury it (you).

It’s time to give her some credit.

The Left should not follow the hide-bound example of the Right, which seems incapable of recognizing any good in a politician the base hates (Obama).

Democrats should give credit where credit is due.

And Brewer deserves some.

Okay Linda, we will. Oh wait, we already are! I’ve done posts expressing appreciation for her stance and so have other liberal bloggers. Our Democratic state legislator asked us at a recent Dem district meeting to be sure and call Governor Brewer’s office and thank and support her for it. I’ve seen numerous prominent Dems laud the Governor over her Medicaid decision. You know who were out on the State Capitol lawn the Governor had her pro-expansion rally? Lots of Democrats. When I called Valdez out on Facebook about her claim here was her reply:

Donna, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. I haven’t heard much from the left in support of her on this. I’ve heard support for the idea of expansion. I continue to hear the usual carping, grousing and often petty insults aimed at her from Dems. It really is beginning to remind me of the GOP on Obama.

Reminds me of the people who, after all that has happened, still think President Obama isn’t trying hard enough to compromise with Republicans in Congress. I won’t deny liberals carp about Governor Brewer despite her Medicaid stance but I’m not buying that it rises to the level of umbrage – screeching how she’s a traitor and making death threats to pro-Medicaid lawmakers – that we’re seeing from the right. At any rate, the exchange ended well because I took it as a challenge to prove that Democrats and liberals are, in fact, giving Governor Brewer credit on this issue. I posted the following as my Facebook status:

Linda Valdez of the AZ Republic says that Democrats/liberals aren’t praising Governor Brewer enough for her Medicaid expansion. She claims she’s hearing lots of “carping” and that we’re…wait for it!…starting to sound just as bad as the GOP. So I’d just like to state for the record that I am glad that Governor Brewer is pushing for the Medicaid expansion and hope she succeeds. How many of my Democratic and liberal friends in AZ agree with that statement?

As of this writing that post has 37 likes and 41 comments, about 75% of which are positive. The complaints are about other things Brewer has done or questioning why she should be thanked effusively for simply doing the right thing. A fair point to which I can only respond that we really need this Medicaid expansion and if saying nice things about our term-limited Governor (who still has a 50% approval rating) about this one thing helps make that happen, so be it. You don’t have to pretend to like anything else she’s done. And remember that the wingnuts’ are losing their freaking minds over this. That alone is enough to make me Team Brewer on this.

Seems that way.

Here’s the story.  James Rosen of Fox News reports an “exclusive,” that “sources inside North Korea” are reporting to the State Department information about North Korean missile plans.

Why is this so explosive?  For one, Rosen’s report reveals that America has intelligence sources inside North Korea, sources privy to that country’s missile program, sources that, thanks to Rosen’s report, were compromised.

How did the Justice Department conclude Rosen was the leaker’s media source (you can watch the video report of it here, on CNN)?

It found that only one State Department official — Stephen Kim — was on the phone with James Rosen.  In fact, when he was on the phone with Rosen, Kim was logged into his computer with the report.  Three hours later, Rosen has the report out on Fox.

Which begs the question:  Did Rosen not vet this with anyone at the State Department?  Did he realize he was compromising sources inside North Korea, a country that seems spy proof?

Did Rosen, in his haste to get the report out, damage our country’s security in doing so?

I’m outraged by what seems to have been a fishing expedition the DOJ did with the AP, but in Fox’s case — a case where Fox has been in full Outrage Mode — possibly some of that outrage might be saved for its own reporter.

All of the above may be contributing to Bachmann’s decision, but here’s what I think is her main motivation: Simple greed.  She will go on the Tea Party lecture circuit and command astounding fees for riling up the loyalists.  This is just what Sarah Palin gave up her Alaska governorship for once we discovered that “there was no There there”.

I leave you with a something she said in her campaign:  “Let me tell you, President Bachmann will allow you to buy any light bulb you want in the United States of America.”  A dim bulb indeed, but one that perfectly fits and illuminates the Tea Party mentality.

You can post comments to my blogs (and see stuff that might have been censored out) by clicking on the “Leave a Comment” link or on http://www.bododiehn.net/hello-world/ , and I will reply publicly (where called for) as soon as I can.

There were a number of Democrats in this year’s freshman class in the US House of Representatives, including Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona’s 9th Congressional District.

Those freshman members who were deemed to be most vulnerable in 2014, including Sinema, were given seats on the House Financial Services Committee to give them access to the deep-pocketed lobbyists for the financial services industry.

As such, most of them are doing very well with their campaign fundraising efforts.

Well, DC is a “quid pro quo” kind of place, and it’s time for the freshmen to give a little “quo” for all of the “quid” that they’ve been getting.

I recently befriended a guy on social media from Atlanta who says something all the time that I find to be quite clarifying and good guidance. It boils down to this: If you’re an attentive person and are not a politician, staffer, adviser, or insider of any kind then what you are is a constituent. As such, it is not your job to compromise your views or values to accommodate any politician’s ambition, even one you support. It is your job to tell politicians your views. To do anything else is to do a disservice to yourself and your community. Remaining silent or (even worse) embracing bad ideas because you think it helps the President or your representative is misguided, to say the least. You’re not even benefiting from large corporate donations from doing so! You and your neighbors are the ones getting screwed, in fact.

Yet I’ve been told for years that complaining about President Obama or Dems in swing Congressional districts who push bad policies, or for that matter agitating for progressive policies in general, hurts the chances of Democrats to be elected or reelected. But why? Consider the two possibilities:

1. That Democratic politicians supporting conservative ideas, such as cutting the retirement safety net or giving sweet deals to Wall Street, do so because they want to and think they are good ideas.

2. That Democratic politicians don’t think they are good ideas, but support them in order to attract campaign contributions and/or moderate votes.

What’s a progressive Democratic constituent who objects to those ideas to do, then? Simple. In either case, resist. If it’s the first, then those Democratic politicians definitely need to hear from us! If the second, well, big donors don’t care what we lowly constituents think and I should think that liberal ire over conservative positions taken by Democratic reps in swing districts would help them appeal to moderate voters who, after all, are moderate because they don’t want to think of themselves as liberal, right?

Investigative journalist and former US Senate candidate John Dougherty had this response to Friday’s announcement that a federal court has stripped the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office to do immigration enforcement due to repeated civil rights violations and evidence of racial profiling:

My first interview with Joe Arpiao was in in the fall of 1993. I wrote a story in Phoenix New Times that Arpaio had no regard for the Constitutional rights of those who have been arrested, but not convicted of a crime. It’s distressing that two decades have past, many have died, more have been abused, lives shattered by a renegade sheriff who manipulated a fawning media to keep his machine rolling. The Arizona Republic for many years perpetuated the Arpaio legend and shares blame for allowing this atrocity of civil rights and justice to have gone as long as it has. May the recall deliver justice and move Maricopa County, and Arizona,into a new era of justice, community and freedom.

Dougherty is absolutely right about the major role that fawning, uncritical media coverage played in allowing Arpaio to get away with his vicious jails and racism (I, and Dougherty I’m sure, would also indict local TV news and talk radio stations in that). But fawning media only tells part of the story.

It’s obvious that many Maricopa County residents shrug off the racial and poverty profiling of the MCSO on the streets because they have nothing, personally, to worry about because of it. “If you’re not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear.” Sheriff Joe’s popularity rides on the belief that he’s enforcing tough law ‘n order against “those people” who we should assume are up to no good. He’s keeping “us” safe from “them”.

But wait a second! There are some lawbreakers, who happen to make up a large percentage of the arrests in Maricopa County, who go to Tent City but don’t get the real Tent City experience. Those would be people who get DUIs. And I feel like I cannot continue with this post until I make an admission: I got a DUI in November, 2002. I stupidly drove under the influence in Chandler (dumb, dumb, dumb!), got pulled over, and faced a penalty of one day in the Maricopa County jail. This is a decade old memory so I’ll try to describe it as best I can.

I showed up for my day in jail in May, 2003, which I had picked out from a calendar at my hearing (seriously, they put up a calendar and allowed me to pick the day most convenient for me). I arrived at the Durango Street Jail and then spent several hours in a receiving cell that smelled like swamp ass, in close quarters with several other women. Most of us were DUI idiots, but at several times we were joined by girls from the “Horse Shoe”, who had committed other crimes and had spent a fair bit of time in the Maricopa County jail. They regaled us with stories of their lives outside and inside jail. I will always say of my time in the Maricopa County jail that I hated the accommodations but I loved the entertainment. At no time did I fear for my safety. The only time I interacted with the “general population” was for the few hours I spent in the nasty holding cell during intake and release. We DUIs got our own separate section of tents where the guards were polite and addressed us as “ma’am”..

I never wore the stripes, didn’t go on a chain gang, and didn’t eat the jail food. I was only there for one day, but I was there with women serving longer terms. They were there for second or extreme DUIs, without aggravating factors. They had sentences ranging from 2 to 30 days. They didn’t wear stripes either. When you are sent to jail for more than 2 days for DUI you are eligible for work release five days a week. You get to leave the jail 12 hours a day, leaving you with plenty of time to eat regular food. On the weekends you are required to spend in the jail you simply forego eating or get stuff from the vending machine. It is possible to avoid the infamous green balogna for your entire sentence if you are in Maricopa County jail for a DUI.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s no picnic. But Tent City for DUIs is basically an amped-up Scared Straight program that is not much like what life is like in there for other inmates. I’m don’t know exactly why DUIs are treated differently but I suspect it has to do with the fact that people at all socio-economic levels get them. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, successful business people, and celebrities are picked up for DUIs. Many are able to afford expensive lawyers for lighter sentences.

This privileged sector within Tent City (for “us”) is not only unjust, but it has allowed Sheriff Arpaio to enjoy the continued support of the public for the horrific way he mistreats the other prisoners (“them”). Imagine how things might be different today had some wealthy white socialites picked up for DUIs in Scottsdale ever been subjected to the same conditions in Tent City as poor undocumented immigrant women picked up in South Phoenix typically are. I’ve got a strong feeling they would be.

Hope everyone had a safe and happy holiday weekend.

Huffing, puffing, Joe Arpaio, at yet another “crime suppression sweep.”

Those have suddenly disappeared, which leads to the question, “Have they been so successful that Joe was able to end them, so successful that there’s no more crime to suppress?”

Or, maybe just maybe more likely, has the circus left the town?

That is, have his publicity stunts lost their shelf life, no longer politically the way to make sure Joe stays in the news?

Has his bevy of PR flacks put their collective finger into the political wind and discovered that the sweeps just ain’t what they used to be?

Between the political force and the judicial force of the recent court ruling on Joe’s enthusiasm for racial profiling, the sweeps might have died.

So what to do now for America’s Most Publicity-Seeking Sheriff?  How to keep his name in the news? 

Hmmmm, hmmm, well, maybe he could do something unheard of for him.  Maybe he could quietly go about his business.  Silly me.  Okay, then, how about trying to enforce the employer-sanctions part of the law Arpaio routinely used to raid businesses? Maybe discourage other businesses by teaming the the DA to slam employers hiring illegal immigrants.

Get ahead of the curve a bit, for once, since employer sanctions are a big part of the Senate’s Gang of Eight bill.

Don’t hold your breath.  Doing that would require real work, something Joe’s never seem to have been a fan of.

  Government, by definition, is inefficient, since it is run by committee, of whose members are not required to have expertise in any field other than campaigning. It therefore stands to reason that enormous government is enormously inefficient.  The natural inclination of government is growth – and not just in relation to the growth of the country. Government departments gain power and influence simply by expanding their own size. As government grows it also becomes less tolerant of those who object to the way it operates and resorts to suppressive regulation and intimidation as a means of holding on to, consolidating, and further increasing its power. This is why the framers of our Constitution were wary of a large federal government and left the vast majority of power to the states. Unfortunately, year after year, either through laziness of the public, inattention of voters or the greed of getting something “for free”, the states have, incrementally, surrendered that gift given by the Constitution.

  In a report prepared by Wayne Crews, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, in the year 2012 the Code of Federal Regulation reached an all time high of 174,545 pages – an increase of 21% in the last decade. It is humanly impossible for any entity to manage – or even understand – such complexity. If you have ever called the IRS more than once with a question, odds are that you got a different opinion each time you called. Many regulations from one department to the next are at cross-purposes, incomprehensible, and defy compliance. But a regulatory agency must regulate or risk its relevancy. A look at suggested regulations (which were mercifully rejected) within OSHA, for instance, reveals submissions to regulate the height of ladders to prevent injuries from falling, or requiring  mop buckets to have a hole in the bottom to prevent children from drowning in unattended buckets.  Using government data, Crews “estimates that in 2012 the cost of federal rules exceeded $1.8 trillion, roughly equal to the gross domestic product of Canada.”  This is stifling to our economy, both to existing business and by discouraging entrepreneurs who would start new companies.

  Most dangerous, however, is the use of the complexity of government to deny us our freedom of speech or the right to fair but equal treatment under the laws. The targeting of conservative groups, other groups that simply protest any government action, or the targeting of individuals who speak out or donate to the oppositional groups or candidates, is a natural consequence of the undue power of those in charge. A public demand for a reduction in the size of government is not going to be eagerly adhered to by those whose positions will be adversely affected. The only thing more powerful than such governmental elitism is an informed electorate. Maybe we have reached an “Aha!” moment.

  I think it is important to remember that both Germany and Italy were Christian states when they launched World War Two. When the allies responded, they were not fighting a war with Christianity any more than we are now fighting a war against Islam. But there was no doubt that there was an evil element among those Christian states – and the vast majority of Christians rejected their ideology. The allies, however, did not declare the war over until their enemies quit the battlefield. It has been a long war, declared by al Qaeda in 1996 but not officially recognized by us until September 11^th, 2001. Mr. Obama might like to quit the field so he can concentrate on domestic matters with which he is more comfortable. But al Qaeda has not quit the field, has, in fact, morphed into various splinter groups to reorganize and change tactics. If the president has decided that he can live with scattered, less damaging (with lower casualty counts) attacks than 9/11, I’m sure they will accommodate his new policy.