Thanks for helping me get this off to a great restart! Start your holiday weekend off right -- check out the Ahwatukee Concert Band on the square at six tonight, then have dins with the trio at 129 1/2!
Top comment of the week today from Darren, responding to the letter about over-coverage of Michael Jackson. Bravo, that's how it's done!
I think it's a great idea on this weekend in particular to go back and read the document we're celebrating, as well as some of the background. I'm also reminded that other peoples have declared their own sovereignty as well, before and since, and there are a lot of good, inspiring stories there too.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Oh yes, I don't think there's any question that legalizing concealed carry in bars is a bad idea. I work in bars a lot, and I sure don't like the thought of encouraging this, even though I realize that there are probably many people doing this illegally now, particularly women, who have a better reason for doing it than men. So let's applaud the unnamed Courier editor for taking a sensible stand on a gun issue, where so frequently in the past the Courier has been the NRA's panting lapdog. As it stands the bill's language is really stupid, as the editor points out.
Of course, let's not forget that if it passes and some really awful things happen, it could turn public opinion even more against all the gun-totin' going on in this state. But that factor should not cause us to question the editor's sincerity. Not a bit.
1pm: Hilariously, several commenters accuse the editor of radical liberalism! Yup, darksiders eat their own young.
at 8:25 AM
I'm pretty sure I've read exactly this before in the site comments, but I can't remember exactly where, it's been a while back. I've noticed this a couple of times over the past year. Following their unfortunate habit of doing what they like with reader submissions and controlling the message, it looks like the editors are promoting occasional comments to letter status -- occasional right-wing comments, mind -- even though they have a box on the opinion page specifically for selected comments. Now why do you think they'd do that?
at 8:17 AM
Cindy Barks' front-pager is factual and clearly not designed to cover debate over the merits of the initiative -- which surprises me given the Courier's usual editorial practice around political issues. But there's a certain glow of approval in the headline that leads me to suspect the editors may decide to support a yes vote on this despite its connections to the water issue and what I see as the likely follow-on vote to kill the Big Chino pipeline.
It may surprise some readers to learn that while I would very happily turn off the tap on that boondoggle, I don't support this method for doing it.
I've spoken with George Seaman at length about this. George insists that while he supports the initiative he is not in a leadership position, and that while many of the people involved have been in the pipeline fight for years and there are no other projects of eligible size on the horizon, the initiative is not about the pipeline per se.
George was able to address some of my concerns about the initiative. I've looked at the text and it seems to be competently written. But I won't support it.
Governance by popular initiative was one of the great progressive ideas of the late 19th century, and many of the new states of that time built it into their constitutions. The upshot for us in Arizona in the early 21st century has been a general hog-tying of government at the behest of narrow, monied interests, often based outside our state, using simplistic and misleading propaganda to stampede people into hasty and ill-considered decisions -- exactly the sort of thing that representative government was designed to prevent.
I hasten to add that I don't think this particular group has a hidden agenda or is using malicious tactics, although if Cindy's competent coverage is any indication, the insistence that it's not about the pipeline is clearly not sticking.
Rather, I'm concerned that putting this idea into play will bring exactly the sort of acute and arbitrary problems we see every year at the capitol into city government, and prevent the sort of big, long-range thinking we most need.
Its supporters think it's reasonable to trust the voters to make better decisions on big spending than their elected officials. Its detractors will say trust the elected officials, not the mob. My concern is that if this thing wins we'll have to trust the propagandists, who are cagier than both and generally win the fight. Speaking as a professional propagandist, I say don't trust us, brother, this group will rob you blind and make you feel good about it.
at 7:36 AM