12. October 2011 by admin.

Teapublicans, especially those in Arizona, have their tea bags in a knot over a botched 2009 sting operation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives code-named “Fast and Furious.”

The operation, which apparently began out of frustration with the courts’ failure to adequately convict and punish those who provide guns to the Mexican drug cartels, focused on a group of “straw buyers” who purchased more than 1,500 weapons from Phoenix-area gun dealers. According to records, dozens of AK-47 type weapons would be purchased at once. The buyers would often return a few days later to buy many more weapons from the same stores. Rather than bust the buyers, ATF agents were told by supervisors to let the guns “walk” in hopes of tracking them to those who were directing the gun buys on behalf of the cartels.

When two of the weapons were later found to have been involved in the death of US Border Patrol agent, Brian Terry, there was understandable outrage.

The Teapublican-controlled Congress seized upon the story in order to embarrass the Obama administration. Congressman Darrell Issa even called for the resignation of Attorney General Eric Holder.  Yet it was Teapublican interference and policies which created the environment that led to the operation.

B. Todd Jones, who has now assumed command of the bureau is the fifth “acting director” since 2006. Thanks to Teapublican obstructionism, the 5,000-employee ATF has not had a permanent director since it was spun off from the Treasury Department in 2006. All of the people nominated by the Bush and Obama administrations to regulate the $28 billion firearms industry have been opposed by the gun rights lobby, including veteran ATF agent, Andrew Traver, whose nomination has been stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee for nearly a year.

Also, Arizona’s Teapublican-sponsored gun laws are at the very root of the weapons smuggling problem. The state’s laws, which were written by the National Rifle Association, permit any citizen who can pass a federal background check to walk into an Arizona gun shop and buy as many weapons as he or she wants. The laws are even more lax when it comes to the state’s many gun shows where there are no background checks.

Finally, the state’s laws provide little real punishment for the straw buyers. If they’re caught, they usually face charges of falsely stating that they purchased the guns for themselves, a punishment that hardly fits the crime.

Posted in Current Events, Tea Party, Teapublicans, Guns, Arizona, Government, Politics, Terrorism | Print | No Comments »

28. September 2011 by admin.

“Immigrants steal our jobs.”

That’s been a common accusation since the very beginnings of our nation. Previous generations despised the Irish, Italians, Germans, Scandinavians, Eastern Europeans, etc. for simply trying to eke out a living. Nothing has changed in the present day, except that now the charge is leveled against Latinos.

In discussing her book, They Take Our Jobs! and 20 other myths about immigrants, Avi Chomsky, historian, teacher, and coordinator of Latin American studies at Salem State College says, “When people claim that immigrants take our jobs, underlying the statement are some flawed ideas of how our economy works. They don’t understand that the world economy is extremely integrated.”

“In the US, there is a dual labor market,” she says. “One category consists of good jobs that offer security, benefits, decent pay and safe working conditions. The second category consists of jobs that are dangerous and unpleasant with no security and low wages. The jobs in the second category have always been done by those who are politically excluded, such as undocumented workers. By politically excluding workers, employers are able to exploit them. And others in our society rely on people doing these jobs.”

In reality, the number of jobs taken by immigrants is a very small percentage of the jobs shipped overseas by our corporations. Moreover, immigrants actually create jobs because they purchase food and automobiles, and they rent or buy homes. They also pay sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes, even Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. (In 2010, it’s estimated that illegals paid $12 billion into Social Security. Yet they are not eligible for any of the government services provided by those taxes.)

As Chomsky states, “The debate on immigration is a way of creating a scapegoat for very real problems, like the economy, even the environment.”

Posted in Corporations, Current Events, Tea Party, Teapublicans, Immigration, Arizona, Politics, Labor, Taxes, Culture, Economy | Print | No Comments »

22. September 2011 by admin.

Unless you’re an intelligent, non-Teapublican living in Arizona, you probably know Joe Arpaio as “America’s Toughest Sheriff.”

You’ve likely heard of the way he treats prisoners at his “Tent City” in the desert by forcing them to wear pink underwear and eat baloney sandwiches for every meal. You may have heard of his regular “sweeps” for illegal immigrants. You may have heard of his celebrity “posses.” And you may have heard of his political connections to the Teapublican elite, such as Senator John McCain, half-governor Sarah Palin, Governor Jan Brewer, AZ State Senator-under-recall Russell Pearce, and Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann.

But you probably haven’t heard that he’s under federal investigation for civil rights violations. You probably don’t know that he misspent $100 million of Maricopa County funds. You probably haven’t heard of the county’s investigation resulting in the firing of his top henchmen.

Unless you live in Arizona, you probably haven’t heard allegations that he and his buddy, former County Attorney Andrew Thomas, trumped up investigations and charges against Arpaio’s political enemies. And you probably haven’t heard that he and his “deputy” Steven Seagal are being sued for shooting an innocent family’s dog during a botched raid looking for suspected illegal immigrants.

For any other elected official, even one of these issues would result in dismissal from office, if not a trip to “Tent City.” But given the massive numbers of wingnut voters in Arizona, Arpaio seems untouchable. Indeed, he’s actually considering a run for the US Senate.

Now he’s even opened an investigation with his “Cold Case” Posse to check the legitimacy of President Obama’s birth certificate! And the Teapublican presidential wannabes are trekking to Phoenix to kiss Arpaio’s…er..ring.

With thugs like Sheriff Joe in their camp, how can anyone take the Teapublicans seriously?

Posted in Current Events, Tea Party, Teapublicans, President Obama, Immigration, Culture, Arizona, Politics | Print | No Comments »

3. September 2011 by admin.

As I was reading a book about the Civil War, I was struck by the many similarities between the run-up to the war and today’s political climate. The Confederate States of America were sparsely populated and dominated by slave-owning plantation owners who resented any interference by the federal government. As one historian said, they likely would have seceded earlier, but it took 6 years for the plantation owners to convince the poor dirt farmers to fight their war for them.

On the other side, the Union was more densely populated with a recent influx of European immigrants. Many of these people had faced persecution themselves in the Old Country, and their religious beliefs were at odds with slavery. Moreover, as a result of the density of population, those in the North tended to understand that regulations and laws were necessary for everyone to thrive. Not just a few.

So the Civil War was as much the result of a conflict of philosophies as it was slavery. This conflict continued when, following the war, many former Confederate soldiers fled westward to get away from the law and order imposed by the victorious North. Unfortunately for them, they eventually ran out of real estate as settlers who believed in the law followed them west. But the philosophies of the former Confederates never entirely disappeared.

Fast forward to today. Our politics are now roughly divided into red states and blue states. The red states strongly oppose any “interference” by the federal government. And where are most of those red states? In the South and West.

And where are the blue states? In the heavily populated East, Upper Midwest, California and Northwest.

Certainly, there are pockets within the South and West where voters understand the necessary role of government. Those tend to be large population centers. But in the rural areas and smaller cities, government - especially the federal government - is viewed with disdain and suspicion.

Particularly in the West, many people identify with the cowboy mentality of old (not realizing that the term “cowboy” was originally a perjorative akin to calling someone a rustler or bandit). These people see themselves as modern day gunslingers who are standing up for their individual rights. They mostly could care less about anyone else, including the less fortunate. After all, to these people, everyone has the responsibility to pull themselves up by the bootstraps no matter the odds against it.

In the South, the story is somewhat different. Certainly resentment of the federal government continues. But now it’s wrapped in the cloak of religion. The new Christian right stems from churches that believe the Bible is literally the word of God. They selectively choose Bible verses that support their narrow views. They are anti-government (it’s the government that prevents openly Christian prayers in public schools and other public venues), anti-gay, anti-minority, anti-abortion, anti-education, anti-environmentalism, anti-evolution, anti-climate change, etc. If the government is for it, particularly the federal government, they are against it.

So here we are, politically not much further ahead than we were 150 years ago. But at least for the moment, we’re fighting with ballots. Not guns.

Posted in Tea Party, Religion, Teapublicans, War, Current Events, Politics, Culture, Arizona, Government | Print | No Comments »

19. February 2011 by admin.

Now that Arizona and several other states are well on the way to permitting (nay demanding) guns in public places, including college campuses, it doesn’t take much imagination to see into the future.  All professors will be issued body armor along with the keys to their classrooms.  Lecterns will be outfitted with bulletproof glass. Grades will be based on who draws a gun first - the teacher or the student.  And graduating with honors will be determined by the caliber of the student’s sidearm.

What about the impact of firearms on the college social scene?  Will football games be followed by shootouts?  Will the NCAA include target-shooting as a varsity sport?  And what of dating?  Does “no” still mean “no” if the unwanted suitor is armed?If these laws would have been passed before the attack on Congresswoman Giffords, it’s likely that her attacker would have unloaded his 33-shot magazines on the Pima Community College campus.  After all, he spent weeks railing against the college and shooting videos.  Had the new gun law been in effect, he might have been encouraged to view his professors and students as targets.

What will it take for U.S. citizens to realize how dangerous the NRA-sponsored gun laws can be?  Where will it stop?  Will we eventually allow citizens to own artillery?  Tanks?  Nukes?  It’s entirely possible.  We seem to ignore the hundreds of gun deaths each year.  We decry the gun violence of Mexican drug cartels, but refuse to tighten laws governing the sale of guns at gun shows which allow the cartels to easily arm themselves.  Indeed, we have more regulations governing the operation of motor vehicles than guns.

What a country!

Posted in Education, Guns, Arizona | Print | No Comments »

11. February 2011 by admin.

It’s true.  The state of Arizona is leading the nation.  Just not in a good way.

For example, we have one of the nation’s worst economies.  Our schools, home prices, and poverty rank among the nation’s worst.  Our gun shows lead the nation in exporting weapons to the Mexican drug cartels.  And, based on the actions of our state legislature, we must have more non-institutionalized lunatics than any other state in the union.  (Of course, if said legislators have their way, we may not be part of the union much longer.)

To elaborate, just consider the bills currently pending in a legislature that is overwhelmingly dominated by Republicans:

SB1433 would set up a committee of 12 lawmakers (of course, they would be mostly Republican) to review federal laws and regulations to determine which are “outside the scope of the powers delegated by the people to the federal government in the U.S. Constitution.”  If passed, the legislation would directly challenge federal supremacy as written in Article 1, Sections 8 & 10 of said Constitution.

SB1308 and HB2562 would limit federal authority setting up interstate compacts to honor each others’ birth certificates segregating children who are considered U.S. citizens from those who are not.

SB1309 and HB2561 would redefine Arizona citizenship in defiance of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

SB1328 would make it legal for Arizonans to defy any federal law or rule if federal employees or members of Congress do not have to comply.

SB1391 would create an interstate firearms freedoms act guaranteeing the right of citizens to bear arms free of federal regulation.

SB1393 declares that the state has the exclusive right to regulate carbon dioxide emissions within the state boundaries while SB1394 protects the right to emit carbon dioxide from human-caused activity.

SB 1545 would allow the production of nuclear fuel in Arizona free from federal regulation.  (It’s unknown if that also includes the production of nuclear weapons.)

SCR1016 would require the approval of the legislatures of half the states in order for Congress to increase the federal debt.

HB2077 requires any federal agency coming into an AZ county to first register with the county sheriff before conducting official business.

HB2471 would bar the appropriation of any state funds to comply with a federal mandate unless the federal government provides a report to show the mandate is constitutional.

HB2472 would allow the state to acquire federal property by eminent domain unless the federal government first receives permission of the state legislature.

HB2537 permits the AZ house speaker and senate president to defend last year’s SB1070 immigration law by lawsuit if necessary.

HB2544 requires U.S. presidential candidates to provide certain proof of citizenship before they can appear on the ballot in Arizona.

HCR2015 calls for a constitutional convention to adopt an amendment to require the consent of three-fourths of the states to increase federal debt.

HCR2022 proposes a constitutional convention to require a balanced federal budget.

On top of all this, the state attorney general has just announced that he is suing the federal government for not defending the border against illegal immigrants and drug smugglers.  (I guess more than 10 border agents per mile doesn’t qualify as a defense.)  Amazingly, it seems that Arizona Republicans are more interested in attacking the U.S. government than dealing with the very real problems in our own state!  Can’t you just picture Nero fiddling while Rome is burning?

Posted in Immigration, Constitution, Guns, Arizona, Economy, Government, Environment | Print | No Comments »

3. February 2011 by admin.

There are now 15 states considering an immigrant-bashing bill similar to Arizona’s.  Some are also considering legislation similar to a bill currently in the Arizona legislature that challenges the 14th amendment.  And many states are trying to match Arizona’s insane gun laws.

Living in Arizona, all I can say is that other states should be more careful in selecting role models.Since President Obama selected Arizona’s Governor Napolitano to lead the Homeland Security Department, the state has gone bonkers.  After turning our citizens against each other by passing SB 1070, Republican legislators passed a bill that allows anyone to carry a concealed weapon without a permit.  Faced with an enormous budget crisis, Republicans have continued to cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy.  And having labeled public education as another form of socialism, they have made draconian cuts to education budgets.

Now these same geniuses have turned their wrath on the federal government.

They plan to challenge the Medicaid program by denying health care access to nearly 300,000 Arizona citizens.  They are in the process of suing the federal government over the health care mandate.  They have passed a “birther” bill that requires federal candidates to produce their original long-form birth certificate in order to be listed on the ballot in Arizona.  (Never mind that, although most of us can easily obtain a copy of our birth certificate, we would find it virtually impossible to get our hands on the original.)  They are in the midst of passing a bill that denies any future cooperation with the EPA.  Now Arizona Republicans are sponsoring a bill that would allow a state legislative panel to ignore any federal laws or mandates it deems unconsitutional.  (In other words, they would usurp the power of the U.S. Supreme Court!)  And the Arizona legislative session is just getting started.

What’s next?  Secession?

If so, Arizona is certain to be the next third world country.

Posted in Immigration, Arizona, Politics, Government | Print | No Comments »

14. January 2011 by admin.

Imagine pulling into a metropolitan gas station and, as you’re filling your tank, a man at the pump next to you gets out of his car with a .44 magnum revolver in a holster strapped to his leg.  Or let’s say you go to a pizza place for lunch and three men walk in wearing guns on their belts.Welcome to Arizona!

For many years, Arizona has permitted “open carry” for any non-felons over 21.  And to make things even more dangerous, last year, the Arizona legislature passed a law allowing any non-felon over 21 to carry a concealed gun without a permit.  The legislators claim that such liberal gun laws will make our state “safer.”

Ironically, the week following the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the Arizona legislature has planned to vote on a law permitting teachers to carry guns in schools and universities.  The law will also allow students over 21 to carry guns to class.

All of this nonsense is the result of recent re-interpretations by the Supreme Court of the 2nd Amendment which states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  Previous Courts held that public safety necessitated some restrictions on this right.  More recently, however, the Court has skipped by the words “well regulated Militia” and focused, instead, on the words “shall not be infringed.”

So here we stand.  Thanks to the NRA and right-wing zealots, the state famous for the Shootout At The O.K. Corrall has returned to its beginnings when “justice” came from the end of a gun.

Is this a great state, or what?

Posted in Education, Guns, Arizona, Government | Print | No Comments »

13. January 2011 by admin.

Following the Tucson shooting, Pima County Sheriff Dupnik stirred up the proverbial hornet’s nest by suggesting that our rancorous political climate may have contributed to the violence.  And his statements about Arizona’s insane gun laws fueled even more anger from the right.

How dare the good Sheriff ask for more civility in our public discourse!  How dare he try to keep guns away from the mentally unstable or even the deranged!

Never once did he point fingers at a particular party or individual politicians and radio hosts.  Yet following his statements on national TV, right wing radio hosts and right wing politicians went on the attack.

Certainly the right wingers were not responsible for the shooting.  Still, Sheriff Dupnik made some valid points.  Statements such as Sharron Angle’s threat of ”2nd Amendment remedies” and “taking out” Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid most definitely could inspire another unblanced individual to act.  Tea Party members carrying guns to Presidential appearances can only be viewed as a threat of violence to President Obama.  Tea Party  signs reading “Next time, we’ll come armed” can only be seen as a threat to elected officials.  And maps of Congressional districts in the crosshairs of a gunsight most certainly present a violent image.

But right wingers claim that the violent implication of these statements and images is a misinterpretation of their intent; a fabrication by the left.  For example, Rush Limbaugh said that liberals were the ones truly responsible for the Tucson shooting.  Half-term Governor Palin defended her Mama Grizzly approach to politics by claiming she and other right wingers are the victims of “blood libel.”  Even The Arizona Republic got into the act by printing an editorial calling for Sheriff Dupnik to “remember his duty” and “to recall that he is elected to be a lawman.”

In other words, right wingers have the right to state opinions in any manner they please.  But if someone on the left takes issue with those opinions, they should remember their place and shut up.

Meanwhile, how have political commentators on the left responded?  Have they displayed similar angst at the suggestion their discourse may have contributed to the shooting (despite the fact that they’ve never encouraged violence)?  No.  Instead of defending themselves, they seem to have taken the Sheriff’s suggestion to heart.  Indeed, Keith Olbermann has announced that he will be acutely aware of language from now on.  He’s even stated that he is dropping his show’s segment “World’s Worst Persons.”

The difference in reaction couldn’t be more revealing.  Either the right is feeling some sense of shame and guilt over the Sheriff’s comments.  Or they are so determined to win at all costs, they simply don’t care if their actions and words lead to more senseless violence.

Personally, I’m betting both of those motives are true.

Posted in Media, Guns, Arizona, Culture, Politics | Print | No Comments »

10. January 2011 by admin.

For many years, the National Rifle Association has encouraged changes in our gun laws to allow more people to arm themselves.  The theory is that guns are a deterrent to criminals.  That may sound reasonable, but it’s simply not true.

Take the latest gun violence in Tucson, Arizona.  A young man who is apparently mentally and emotionally disturbed was sold a handgun by a sporting goods store.  A few months later, he walked up to the Congresswoman and shot her in the back of the head at point blank range.  He then sprayed bullets into the crowd killing 6 and wounding more than a dozen others.  Despite the fact that the shooting took place in what is probably the most heavily armed state in the union, not one person drew a gun to fire back.  Why not?  Those in the immediate area all said that the shooting happened in “a flash.”  One eyewitness who was armed said the shooting lasted no longer than 10-12 seconds.  Yet in that time approximately 30 rounds were fired.

That’s a common description of shooting events.  They happen in the blink of an eye.  So even if they’re armed, victims and witnesses usually don’t have time to draw their weapons, let alone fire back.  And, for the sake of argument, let’s say that some of those in the crowd were able to draw their weapons.  Now everyone else in the crowd is in the middle of a shootout - a situation potentially even more dangerous.  With bullets flying in many directions it would be difficult for bystanders to determine who’s the greater threat.  And, if the shootout continues until police arrive, how do the police know who’s a criminal and who isn’t?

Now consider this:  If, in a separate incident, a criminal is already pointing a gun at you from close range, will you have an opportunity to draw your own weapon?  Doubtful.  If you try, you likely will be shot.  Some defense, huh?  And if two people simultaneously draw handguns, the “winner” is the one who doesn’t hesitate to shoot and/or shoots more accurately.

Moreover, handguns are very inaccurate at distances greater than 10 feet.  Police statistics have shown that, in real world situations under stress, only 2 of 10 shots fired will hit somewhere in the target.  In other words, you may have a better chance of surviving an attack by running than by engaging in a shootout.  And, inside 6 feet, you have a better chance of disarming your assailant with your hands (if you practice proven techniques) than trying to draw your own weapon.

Before you get the idea that I’m anti-gun, I should tell you that I have owned rifles and shotguns since I was 13 and have been around them all my life.  But I do not own a handgun, nor do I believe in them.  The attack on Congresswoman Giffords should be evidence enough that our nation’s insane gun laws permitting the widespread ownership and carrying of  handguns need to change.

Posted in Guns, Arizona | Print | No Comments »