Why the obsession with firearms?

This goes through armor. And through the victim, through the wall, through a tree outside... (Danny Vermin:Johnny Dangerously)

There are two stories related to firearms that I noticed today in the East Valley Tribune. The first is about the Governor's veto of a stupid bill that would reduce the penalty for people carrying a concealed weapon illegally. This upset Russell Pearce, the sponsor of the bill.

Note to right-wing have some common sense... Criminals carry weapons without a permit and might be willing to pay $300 if caught. If you have no common sense then how about self-preservation? I can see the TV ad now...



This second article is about a homeowner trying to shoot a guy allegedly trying to steal his truck. I understand the frustration that guy must feel. His truck was previously broken into and he wanted to protect his property.

This is a major problem with our current guy laws. His actions were extremely dangerous and I do not mean for the (alleged) criminal. Depending on the caliber of the handgun, he could have easily missed what he was firing at and hit something or someone else. A .357 , .44, or God forbid a Desert Eagle .50 cal could go through a wall and hit someone while they slept (or through the car and through a wall and the neighbor next door).


I don't have a problem with guns just the dumb, untrained people who buy them. Gun training and testing should be mandatory to own a gun. Just like a driver license test...

Uncle...

I am going to layoff blogging about the Presidential race for a while (unless I feel compelled to comment). I am sad that seeing the Clintons on television makes me want to throw things at the TV.

After weeks of working very long hours and weeks of being angry about the nomination fight, I have decided to take some time off. At this point, I cannot go to any of the states (Indiana, North Carolina, Oregon, etc) to affect the outcome, so I am inclined to accept that it is going to happen no matter what I think.

I would still like to find some good contributors for the site, but so far I have not had a lot of luck (you know who you are, lazy contributors).

I am going to try to post only once per day, but we will see...

Thomas Watch: The money rolls in...

This year's race for Maricopa County Attorney is shaping up to be a big one if the money raised is any indication. Tim Nelson, who is supported by the Governor, has raised $140,000 in two months while Andy has raised about $210,000. Traditionally, Maricopa County races tend to be low dollar affairs, so this is unusual. I am unhappy to say that Gerald Richard has only raised about $3,000. If he wants to make a serious run he has to start fundraising...

In spite of the fundraising, I still do not have any idea who is the strongest candidate against Thomas.

I will be watching for the following:

1. Tim Nelson's fundraising -- Are his high totals sustainable or just the Governor giving him a jump start?
2. Gerald Richard -- Will he raise enough to be competitive?
3. Who are the candidates hiring to run their campaigns? Will we see the same old losing consultants with the same old strategy?
4. Which candidate is going to draw a strong contrast with Andy Thomas?

I think this sums things up well

Poor John, people might find out the truth

I think this video about John McCain's enormous wealth is pretty funny. I have to admit that I knew he (and by he I mean his wife) was rich, but until last week I did not know how rich. He is not Mitt Romney rich, but he is Clinton rich (yeah, Obama is the elitist here).

Thanks to Karen Johnson?

The Arizona Republic has this article about the death of the bill attempting to change the 9/11 memorial. Karen Johnson was the deciding vote. It is sad when Karen Johnson is the voice of reason for Republican Party.

I really liked the Party of Goldwater better than the modern incarnation. At least those guys cared about our Constitutional rights (some of the time)...

Here is her reasoning:

"Besides, this monument was done by private individuals with private money. And I think that everybody is entitled to their opinion. If it is offensive to someone else, well, I thought that we had First Amendment rights in this country. I'm not happy with all the sayings on there, but I liked some of the ones that they wanted to remove."Among those, she said, were "Fear of foreigners" and "Feeling of invincibility lost.""Really," Johnson said, "weren't we afraid of foreigners after this happened? We may still be. And does anybody feel now that America is invincible? I don't have a problem with that.

Although I can understand how some people do."In the end, that's exactly why the memorial should stay as it is - confusing, controversial, forlorn, infuriating - because after all these years, that's still how 9/11 makes us feel.

This is why HRC needs to drop out tonight...

This is why the primaries need to end today...

My blogging time is limited, but I could not pass up Don Diamond

The New York Times has this article about John McCain's (and every other Republican in the state) connection to Don Diamond. Here is my favorite quote:

A spokeswoman for Mr. McCain, Jill Hazelbaker, said the senator, now the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, “had done nothing for Mr. Diamond that he would not do for any other Arizona citizen.”

I am still waiting on my request to change the boundaries of a national park, so that I can add to the value of property that I own...

I haven't read this anywhere else so...

There has been plenty written the last few days about the ABC Debate. Yes, it was awful...


One part of it that really bothered that I have yet to see mentioned is the involvement of George Stephanopoulos. He is a man who owes his fame to running Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign. He clearly has inside information on Hillary Clinton. I have no doubt that the Clintons ran a very large self-research operation. This basically means that in addition to investigating opponents, they also investigated themselves.


Stephanopoulos as one of the top people on the Clinton campaign would have had access to and likely had an obligation to make himself familiar with almost any and all negative information about the Clintons.

The ethical thing for him to do was to not be involved in the debate. It is unethical to use his insider information to formulate questions for HRC and would it be unreasonable to expect him to be objective given his close relationship with the Clintons (favorable or unfavorable). I am not sure if this explains his performance in the debate, but imagine Karl Rove throwing questions to Laura Bush in her run for the Republican nomination. It is strange that everyone ignored the very large elephant in the room.

Republicans in the Leg decide they cannot protect us from bad thoughts after all

Just in case you it missed the Arizona Legislative committee considering the stupid bill that would regulated various kinds of free speech is dead (for now).

What is wrong with good ole jail?

The Arizona Republic has this article about Avodale becoming the latest Arizona jurisdiction to post mug shots of criminals (in this case suspected) on the Internet. I get it... I know, we are just being tough on crime. When did we decide that public humiliation needed to be added to the adequate punishment of paying fines and going to jail.

There is just something about a grandstanding get tough on crime blowhard politician that makes me not like their ideas. That is why I think this idea is such a dumb one.

Oh Ken, say it ain't so

Ken Cheuvront has decided to vote to extend a tax cut in a year when we have record deficits. The article from the KVOA is here. Ken seems like a good guy. It has been long known that he is a fairly pro-business/libertarian Democrat. I personally do not have a problem with lower taxes, but I do have a problem with a Democrat voting to extend a tax cut when we are underfunding education and have massive budget shortfalls. If you plan on extending tax cuts then you should not vote for them unless you have a means to pay for them. It also bothers me that his business is a likely beneficiary of the cut.

I would like to have an explanation as to why he chose to do this. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now...

Beware: The leg wants to protect us from bad thoughts

The Arizona Republic has this article about a bill making its way through the Legislature that will attempt to ban several rather reprehensible things. It is intended to do things like ban materials that are related to rape, bomb making and how to administer date rape drugs. Most of us would agree that the goal is laudable, but the like most legislation the danger is in the details.

People who create or sell material that causes someone to commit a serious crime
could be sued under a bill that faces a hearing today in the Arizona Legislature
that is expected to draw a number of opponents from various industries.

First, where is the bright line between good material and bad? Does making people who sell these materials responsible (book stores) make sense? Do we want to Legislature getting involved in such things?

The founding fathers were quite correct when they created Freedom of Speech as a right. It is very difficult to regulate ideas, it is nearly impossible in an Internet age... The simple fact is that if we want a free society we have to tolerate the existence of things we find offensive. We also have freedom of choice about were and when we purchase things like books. People that are worried about these sorts of things should seek bookstores that share their values.

We should prosecute people when it makes sense, but even there we need to be careful. We have to accept that freedom does not come with out sacrifices.

Kirsten Sinema Rock star for a day!

Anyone who has met Kirsten Sinema (I have) knows that she is smart, determined and devoted to her various causes. There are a lot of people that fit the same description, but they often lack effectiveness. I admit that I wondered more than once if this was the case with Rep. Sinema.

I am happy to report that she has eliminated my doubts by doing this. Basically, she found the votes to pin an amendment (giving some rights to unmarried couples) to the anti-gay marriage amendment making its way through the Legislature destined for the Fall ballot. This left the Republicans in the Leg in the untenable position of enshrining rights for these couples or dropping the amendment.

Kudos to Rep. Sinema for finding a way to win with the odds stacked against her. You are the Democrat's Lament Rockstar for a Day, to Hell with that you get two days!

Arizona Republicans don't care about kidergartner's Second Amendment rights

Karen Johnson has brought us so many good (and by good I mean idiotic) bills over the years that I cannot remember them all. Now she has dared to defy "Big Kindergarten" by stripping them of their Second Amendment Rights. That's right, she has agreed to not only strip kindergartners of their God given (who needs a Constitution) right to bear arms, but she has also agreed to strip students and faculty all the way through high school of their Second Amendment rights.


The Arizona Republic has the article here...


Apparently, drunk frat boys from ASU and U of A are better candidates for carrying guns. God knows that college students are paragons of responsibility.

The tax returns are here

I am not sure why the Clintons thought that releasing their tax returns this late in the season was a good idea. Here is the link:

We will have stories for at least the next week about their massive $109 million in income since 2000. I think this could be what finishes her off, but then you never know...

Arizona shoots to near the top in education

Ok, not really, we are still at the bottom. I had to find someway to make this story from the Arizona Republic fresh... By my calculation, we spend 30% less than the national average. Sad.

Censorship is such a lonely word...

This article from Arizona Republic outlines the latest attempt to change the 9/11 memorial to reflect the right-wing's infantile view of history. I wish I knew the answer to the question of why the Legislature has the power to do this?

Built with $500,000 in private donations, its sweeping design of concrete and steel includes rubble from the World Trade Center and Pentagon and dust from
the Pennsylvania field where the final hijacked plane crashed. Sunlight passes through 54 inscriptions laser-cut into the memorial's cylindrical face, making
the phrases visible on the concrete below.

I cannot understand why a privately funded monument would not be protected by the First Amendment? The word censorship is thrown around a lot just like fascism and Nazi, but this truly is censorship. When the government seeks editorial control over a privately funded project, it is textbook censorship. It is OK for people to have different view points. People are not hurt by reading things with which they disagree.

Every member of the legislature who voted for this bill is not only unpatriotic, but also cares nothing for the rights guaranteed to us under the Constitution.