There needs to be real debate about immigration

I guess I am the rarest breed of political animal, a moderate on immigration. I tend to lean toward the pro-immigration side because the anti-immigrant people tend to use demagoguery and false information to forward their cause. I don't believe the immigrants are the root of all evil like the Russel Pierces of the world. There is this article from the EVT today about a study that sheds some light on reality.

Immigration is a mixed bag, but I suspect it is largely more positive than negative in economic terms. Immigrants pay taxes, social security, medicare and they receive very little for their money. They also provide services at a greatly reduced rate. It has always seemed a little funny to me that the people most against immigration tend to live in recently constructed McMansions most likely built by immigrant labor.

Here is where I differ with some pro-immigration people: Americans would do the jobs that immigrants are doing, but they require a livable wage and safe working conditions. I admit to a little frustration about the language barrier that sometimes exists. I try to remain sanguine and I do wish I spoke Spanish well enough that it did not matter. I am annoyed when I see bill boards or signs in Spanish only. I don't mind bi-lingual.

What is my point here? We as a society need to decide what we want. We cannot have endless supplies of cheap labor and the benefits that result without paying for some increase in the cost health care and education. In other words if we enjoy the benefits, we have a social responsibility.

In economic terms, the people with the cheap services are really just shifting their burden to other people. It is important for everyone to remember that immigrants are people. It is too easy to demonize someone who has less power and is different. Resist the temptation. Also, they are from a different culture, deal with it. Is it sooo bad to hear different music or deal with slightly different social morays?

Why do the wingers hate the light rail?

I have tried to figure this out for a while, but I still cannot fathom the opposition. I know they hate government, taxes and the like, but the taxes would be paid anyway (for road construction) and the government would be just as big building roads, so why the road building bias? I am sure that they can all see the smog that hangs over the valley...

I for one am open to nearly any solution that cleans up our air or do they not believe our air is dirty? There is this article in the Republic today about opposition to light rail. Building more roads is inevitable, but studies show that more roads do not lead to less driving or less pollution. It just pushes sprawl further out.

If any of you anti-light rail people are out there, tell why you hate light rail (and I don't want to hear some anti-government rant, please see above). After that, tell me how you think we can improve the air quality in the valley.

Thomas Watch: More info on his folly

There is this article in the Republic about Thomas' death penalty obsession. There is not a lot new here, but it does go into how Maricopa county compares to other counties in death penalty cases. It also goes through some of the cases that Thomas sought the death penalty. This one stuck out:

For example, Thomas sought the death penalty against David Szymanski, who is accused of fleeing police and killing a motorist in April 2005. While Szymanski still faces a first-degree murder charge, the capital case fell apart when the defendant was acquitted of a related assault charge and Scottsdale police acknowledged that the police pursuit broke department policy.

I don't know about you, but this does not seem like a death penalty case. The guy should go to jail for a longtime for sure, but should tax payers spend $250,000 dollars to try to put him to death? Is his offense worth putting him to death? When I think of people worthy of the death penalty, I think of Jeffery Dalmer or the Baseline Rapist.

Thomas Watch: What a dufus...

Andrew Thomas is truly a dufus. This is what happens when you elect a county attorney who has not tried a felony criminal case (from the Republic). There is this article from the East Valley Tribune. The article shows the problems with using ideology rather than common sense or a desire for good government as your guiding principle in the execution of public duties.

“They’re overcharging for felonies that should be misdemeanors,” Cantor said. “Then they plea to the lead charge, but their lead charge is too stiff. This means everything goes to trial.” Michael Freeman, an attorney with Wolf & Associates, agreed. “Charges are more serious than they were two years ago for the same type of crimes,” he said. “For example, cases that should be charged as simple possession of drugs, or personal possession, are now being charged as possession for sale with a possible mandatory prison sentence.”

In November, Thomas said that for second offenses, he would only approve plea deals requiring a prison sentence. He estimated that would mean an additional 2,600 prison inmates each year, which would cost taxpayers an additional $53 million. Tempe defense attorney Craig Penrod said more felony DUI cases are going to trial that should be settled with plea deals. Penrod also said he saw prosecutors charge a man who sexually assaulted an infant the same way they charged stepsiblings who had consensual sex, because of Thomas’ “rote plea agreements.”

The problem with this mentality is that justice does not happen through automation. Human judgement has to be central to the criminal justice system. All defendants cannot be treated the same and create a just outcome. A good example is when a 19-year old is prosecuted as a sex offender for sleeping with his/her 15 year old girl/boy friend that they met in their highschool. I won't go into the right or wrongness of this, but I think most would agree that 40-year old sleeping with the same 15-year old is worse.

I would contend that they should not be prosecuted in the same way, thus judgement is important.

Thomas Watch: Even the wingers agree

Poor Andrew Thomas, even the Right-wing columnist from the Arizona Republic thinks he wrong. Imagine a Republican coming out in favor of separation of powers and individual rights. Robert Rob's column is here.

The irony is that if Thomas would be more selective about his death penalty cases, they would move through the system more quickly because there would be enough qualified defense attorneys. I am still not convinced that death is a worse punishment than life in prison.

Our dumb Legislature: A continuing series

Yesterday the Leg was trying to was trying to magically register sex offenders' online IDs in spite of the fact that it is near technological impossibility that depends on sexual predators being honest. Today they are trying to control the political thoughts of teachers and professors. The article from the Republic. The reason for the bill is pointed out below:

In an example of the type of behavior he is targeting, Verschoor said one of his granddaughters' elementary teachers required the class to write letters to a lawmaker opposing a certain bill.

I am actually familiar with this classroom situation. The teacher had the kids write the legislature in response to what the Leg called SBSPEA (pronounced SB-SP-EA HB3450), also known as the Sponge Bob Square Pants Elimination Act. Legislators feared that Sponge Bob seemed a little too gay, so they decided to eliminate all references to the character, including all TV shows, merchandise and all other references. The bill also called for a new thought cleaning machine to eliminate all thoughts of Sponge Bob from their young impressionable minds and to clean out any gay thoughts pushed on them by the evil purveyors of the Gay Agenda.
The kids were understandably upset...

Our dumb legislature: A continuing series

There was this article today about the Leg trying to monitor sex offenders online. While it is a laudable goal, it is stupid. It shows the utter ignorance of our legislators. Why not regulate the thoughts of sex offenders? They should register whenever they think about doing something illegal. If they don't register the thought and we catch them they will go to jail!

This is an exercise in futility... There are so many ways for a sex offender to get around these rules. The simple fact is that the technology does not exist to track a group of people like this online (see China). The other thing that really worries me about this is that Andrew Thomas thinks it is an appropriate balance between civil liberties and protecting the public. My knee jerk reaction is to oppose anything Thomas supports (given his extraordinarily bad judgement about almost everything).

Our dumb legislature is at it again...

This article in the Republic outlines the legislative power grab being perpetrated against the referendum system in Arizona. I cannot help but think that all of these proposals are non-starters because the referendum system is in the AZ Constitution.

Of course the system has its advantages and disadvantages, but it serves everyone equally well. When the Democrats inevitably take over the legislature, the Republicans will have the same process in place now. Also, conservative and Republicans regularly use the process to their advantage. Then there is the issue of Independent voters which make up about one third of the voters in AZ, the initiative process gives them a voice as well.

The simple fact is conservatives in the Legislature have not realized that Arizona is not that conservative. I think Arizonans are pragmatic more than anything. The legislature is not representing the people very well and they are instead voting for policies they wish the legislature would put forward.

I think the Legislature is misreading what people want and misreading the level of trust people have in them. Note to legislature, We the people of Arizona think you do a crappy job, so we are forced to pass our own laws. Furthermore, you won't get a pay raise until you do something right. Tax cuts and anti-immigrant laws not the only concern we have as a people.

District 7 -- Phoenix

I am having trouble finding out real information about this race. I want some dirt... I may have to covertly volunteer on both campaigns to see if I can get some info. Here is a article on the race. It is mainly an article about endorsements. Big whoop... I would like to know where both candidates stand and what they want to do.

Andrew Thomas wants blood on his hands: Thomas Watch

Here and here are more of the ongoing saga of Thomas trying to rush death penalty cases in Maricopa county. The more I see of Thomas' non-sense the more I feel that prosecutors should not be elected (see the Duke rape case). It just seems to invite prosecutorial misconduct (Duke) or political posturing (Thomas).

At a certain point, government should be well managed and less political. Thomas has got to go before he gets someone innocent killed or costs the county a lot of money or both. I know it is hard for families to go through a 19 year ordeal waiting for some to be put to death. Maybe things would be better for everyone involved if we did away with the death penalty. I have been a reluctant supporter of the death penalty, but there just seems to be too many problems with the system to make it viable. It is not like life in prison is a picnic...

You have public officials like Thomas who don't take their duty seriously. Thomas does more damage to the system he wants to speed up than he helps it...

Rail (not light)

There is this article in the Republic about a commuter train between Tucson and Phoenix. I like the idea of trains. I have used them in other cities and I generally like them. They have their ups and downs. I know other states have had similar discussion... We have to start thinking differently if we want to start reducing air pollution. Maybe this is one piece of the solutions...

Andrew Thomas: Worst person in Maricopa County? THOMAS WATCH

We all knew that Andrew Thomas was a wing nut when he was elected to the office of Maricopa County Attorney, but much like George Bush himself, few of thought he would be this bad. Unfortunately, County Attorney is a pretty powerful position and not one that you want occupied by someone with an ideological agenda. He has the power to ruin lives and he has shown that he has no scruples about doing just that.

This article from the New Times outlines the lengths that Thomas went to prosecute a 16-year old kid for something he obviously did not do. If you saw the 20/20 report, then you saw the smirking Thomas who was more than happy to put the kid on the sex offenders list for showing his friends Playboy. The only thing that saved him was a judge's sage advice to appeal the ruling to his parole officer (who knew they had that kind of power?).

First, you don't ruin a kids life for something so trivial. Second, if you populate the sex offenders list with non-sex offenders, it not only ruins lives, but dilutes the meaning of this list.

The worst part about Thomas is that he seems to do things in spite having all manner of facts and expert advice to the contrary.

Today, we have this article from the East Valley Tribune. Thomas is pushing for faster death penalty trials. He also recently wanted his prosecutors to stop plea bargaining for certain crimes. Of course, he did not want to find the $50 million extra dollars to pay for it.

Here we have Thomas wanting to force defense attorneys to take more death penalty cases. He basically says they are lazy and cannot understand why the prosecution and defence lawyers cannot take the same numbers of cases. Could it be that the prosecution has the police to investigate (just watch Law and Order sometime, Andrew). It is also pointed out that Thomas has never prosecuted a case himself.

I understand wanting swift justice, especially in violent cases where innocent people are hurt and killed, but civilized societies do not rush people to the electric chair without proper safe guards. I am of the "It is better to not put to death a hundred people that deserve it than to mistakenly put one innocent person to death." If the prosecution does its job properly, the outcome will be mostly right. Our system works pretty well, but when you speed things up without safe guards you not only risk putting innocent people to death, you also risk over-turning death sentences on appeal. Here is more this topic...

I have my eye on you Mr. Thomas. I will be updating my Thomas watch regularly.

What is good for the goose...

Here we have a typical Republican move from the East Valley tribune. All of the sudden, Linda Gray, one of our resident conservative wack-jobs from the State leg wants to ban out of state contributions for ballot initiatives. There are so many things wrong with this:

1. How does one define out of state? Most orgs are a mix of money from the state and other sources (see the Chamber of Commerce, Labor Unions, the DNC/RNC).
2. Duh, the First Amendment
3. What makes her think this would change any outcome?
4. Why not make all contributions come from in-state sources, including US House, Senate and all state/local offices? What makes ballot intiatives so special?

Plenty of out of state money was spent on ballot initiatives on both sides. It cuts both ways... Why is the first reaction to losing to change the rules? Here is something to think about... How about you beat the ballot initiative fair and square by raising tons of money and running a better campaign. I cannot say for sure, but I would guess that the other side of the animal cruelty initiative probably had more money.

A good example is TABOR (Tax Payer Bill of Rights). It was passed in Colorado several years ago by out of state sources. They caught the liberal side flat-footed and beat them. The policy was a disaster for the state. The liberals in Colorado have fought long and hard and have made in-roads at dismantling the intuitive. It is called Democracy (yes, I know we live in a Republic). This is how it should work...

I have had this same discussion with friends around the smoking ban. All they can say is that they have a right to smoke and that it is a violation of their rights. There is not right to smoke people! YOU HAVE TO WIN AT THE BALLOT BOX! If you can't do that, sit down and shut up.

This is a tough one!

There is this article in the Republic today about loop 101 speeding cameras. Like a lot of people, I find this solution dubious, even if it is effective. In general, our society seems to be moving towards diminished freedom to ensure safety. This is another example... Part of me believes that the effectiveness of the cameras justify their existence. I don't like people flying by me on the highway at 100mph+ speeds. I would like to see tighter enforcement of reckless driving. These cameras in vacuum would be fine, but they don't exist alone. There are part of larger movement to restrict freedom for a variety of both good and bad reasons.

There are smoking bans (which I like), bans on spanking in CA, speeding cameras, red-light cameras, federal warrantless wiretapping and on and on. The problem at the moment is that technology is moving faster than our laws and societal ethics. Our society needs to have a serious conversation about what freedoms are important enough to keep and which freedoms we are willing to water down or give up. The problem is that being free means sometimes excepting risk.

Think about motorcycle helmet laws. They make really good public policy sense, but I am against them because I think they intrude on personal freedom. I always wear a helmet when I ride, but I think others should have the option. Where is the line drawn when it comes to safety and freedom? If don't start thinking about this, we will end up with a haphazardly built system that will not properly protect freedom or provide for proper safety.