Tucson Sammy

Congratulations to Jim Nintzel of the Tucson Weekly for blowing the hypocrisy whistle on the new City Council in last week’s Skinny.
Apparently, after campaigning on impact fees, and beating up the Republicans for not implementing them fast enough, the freshmen councilmen (Uhlich and Trasoff) were part of a unanimous vote to essentially wave fees for a commercial development on the south side for the Barclay Group – a heap big out-of-town special interest corporate type.

Not one, but both hapless dailies took editorial positions in favor of voting by mail. This is astounding. Are they really that naïve, or are they just stupid? Even Tom Danehy of the Weekly got this one right! This has been in the news lately because the Old Pueblo Politburo is discussing this latest iteration of Motor-Voter for city elections. I suppose that their experience has shown that committing voter fraud in Tucson is far too costly and inefficient.

If you would like to read a rant by yours truly, check out “The F-Word is the Bottom Line” under “Articles”.

Have a nice day. (insert smiley face here)

Speaking of Tom Danehy, Tucson’s premier local talk radio program, Inside Track with Emil Franzi and friends, may now be found at 690AM KVOI “The Voice” from 1:00 to 3:00 PM on Saturdays and 7:00 to 9:00 AM on Sundays – Emil and Tom mix it up during the Saturday show.

Sometimes one hears a phrase, an expression, or some sort of notion that has a piercing affect. Like a good horror movie, the memory of the phrase pesters one for days.

So it was for me when I heard Steve Leal say, while discussing crime prevention and law enforcement, “We have to leave the 19th Century model.” This was the last sentence in a monologue he delivered at the City Council meeting of December 10, 2005. During the monologue he asserted that we needed new approaches to crime prevention – the usual “root cause” stuff, and that we would end up “chasing our tail” if we continue as we are.

I must take a moment to digress. I like Steve Leal. He is a friendly, personable man – even toward people such as yours truly. He’s the type of councilman to whom you can walk up in the grocery store and engage in conversation. In short, to the best of my knowledge he’s a regular guy. How he developed his screwed up politics is beyond me.

Of course, the 19th century model to which he refers is neither the ironclad ship Monitor, nor the Merrimac. He refers back to a day, on the frontier at least, when people took care of themselves and each other. Townsfolk would hire a professional lawman to organize posses when necessary, and run the jailhouse. “Public safety” was an individual thing to which the lawman would provide occasional assistance.

Sounds pretty good, doesn’t it?

This is what Steve would abandon. Apparently, he thinks that it’s silly to wait for someone to commit a crime when you can manipulate people before the fact, and avoid the crime altogether! This is the core of leftist thought. Individuals running around doing whatever the hell they want with their time and money makes the job of creating a utopia really hard. If government officials were allowed to recreate the masses as good people, crime would disappear. Anyone with a bad attitude would be sent to sensitivity training, or be used as an example.

Take a look at their policies, and you will see that those policies are totally consistent with this line of thought: increased taxation; government education; government charity; government babysitting; excessive regulation; “hate” crimes – the list goes on.

If Steve were the only leftist on the council, he would be mildly entertaining. Unfortunately, he is joined by at least three others, creating a leftist majority on the Tucson City Council. To make matters worse, we have a new City Manager who is very good (much better than his predecessor), and we’ve recently been relieved of state imposed municipal spending limits.

“Let’s pray for Tucson.”

The following is a “must read”, it reveals the true causes for the decline of the old media:

http://www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/Currents/Content?oid=oid:77021

It’s an article by Michael Lenehan entitled “A Year Without Journalism” which was published locally in the Tucson Weekly, January 5, 2006.

In the article he freely admits that newspaper circulation is plummeting, while internet news sources are experiencing wild growth in readership. Mr. Lenehan suggests that bloggers would be out of business if the real journalists went on strike – he proposes a one year work stoppage. After all, those little pissants just steal from the real journalists anyway.

Gosh, do you think we could get the “journalists” to sign a contract to that affect before they change their minds?

Apparently without intention, Mr. Lenehan exemplifies the problem of the Old Media – and it’s not the pissants in the New Media. Does he wonder why people are abandoning newspapers in droves? Does he ask what the dweebs are providing readers that he and his colleagues are not? Does it occur to him that with his superior intellect, work ethic, moral character, and overall goodness, he and his colleagues could make a superior product and grind those little dweebs under their boot-heels? No! He dismisses the competition as geek losers who can only steal the stellar creations of the “journalists”.

These guys live in a closed, detached, and somewhat incestuous industry that has lost sight of the prize. They need to start writing for their customers and not each other. The people want accuracy, honesty, and the whole story.

The notion that internet news sources do no original reporting is delusional wishful thinking on the part of the “journalists”. How many national stories have been broken by Matt Drudge? Who asks the better questions in an interview – Hugh Hewitt or Katie Couric? Who told the truth about President Bushes National Guard service – Rush Limbaugh or Dan Rather?

Remember, “bloggers” might have come to be known as “bjournalists” if the latter did not sound so Swedish; then the “journalists” would have had to go back to being reporters.

Dang, now this is newsworthy! Here I thought that firearms enthusiasts were at the bottom of the totem pole as far as our public servants were concerned, but it appears that Off Road Vehicle (ORV) users have replaced them!

According to an article written by Tim Ellis for one of the hapless dailies, I think it was the Red Star, Pima County is about to convert Pima Motorsports Park, a park devoted to ORV riding, into a shooting range.

According to the article, the park was built with the volunteer labor of members of the ORV community, and a $1.2 grant from the state.

This is a case of saving some money up front, only to lose it all later. Pima County still owns the land, so they ultimately control the disposition. If the ORV crowd had arranged a purchase of the land, they would not have to worry about a fickle county…well, in this post-Kelo world, perhaps it matters not.

The county does have a problem in that the state grant would have to be repaid if the park is terminated – but not to worry, Raphael Payan of Pima County Parks and Recreation has suggested using open-space money to pay it back if need be…Yikes! Does Gayle Hartmann know about this? Do the voters who sanguinely approved the open space bond know that open spaces include shooting ranges?

What is the lesson here? People have honor, government entities have interests. Do not think that they value your interests over their own.

So, how does Pima County say, “Trust Me”? I would tell you, but this is a family site.

Note: Hat tip to the Alpha Environmentalist for bringing this to our attention.

I spent a number of moons sailing in the Sea of Cortez – Mexican waters. I’ve had a taste of sailing in California – Coast Guard waters. I find one more rewarding and redeeming than the other.

Now, both areas are beautiful, and the weather in these neighboring locations is the envy of the world. There are minor differences; for example, the winds are better on the Pacific coast, while the Sea of Cortez is free of shipping lanes and less crowded in general.

The difference is safety – not the degree, but the nature thereof.

In Mexico, there is no Coast Guard to call when you run out of gas; in fact, there is no Coast Guard to call if you are on fire and sinking. Does that make cruising in Mexico inherently unsafe? Nope. It means that the responsibility for safety shifts from the government to the sailor.

In California, the Coast Guard assumes the responsibility for rescue operations of vessels in distress. Unfortunately, along with responsibility comes authority. They have the authority to dictate the behavior of skipper and crew, equipment kept on board, even the posting of signs warning people not to break the rules. I’m not suggesting that the equipment is not useful, nor the behavior appropriate; but completing a scavenger hunt does not, in it self, make one safe on the water. Safety becomes an act of compliance, rather than individual preparedness.

In Mexico, no one will board your boat to see if your red flares have passed their shelf life. While it is true that Mexican authorities may board your boat to check for documentation, and a license if fishing equipment is aboard, it remains a rather unlikely event. In the ten months I lived aboard in Mexico, I never saw a government craft. So the sailor in Mexico assumes responsibility for his safety, and retains authority over his boat and his life.

So in one case, the sailor assumes responsibility for himself. In the other, he trades off some responsibility, and authority, to the government; in return, the government promises to get him out of trouble. The Theory of Compensation suggests that as the risks are reduced, behavior becomes more reckless. Which environment encourages better seamanship? Which incentive inspires greater focus and caution – a slap on the wrist with a fine, or death (not necessarily a quick one)? Is there one more suited to the manly among us (may I use the term “manly” in the 21st century?). Is there one more suited to punks?

The sea is truly the last wild place. When you point your bow toward the open water outside the bay, does your heart soar because you’re entering the wild, or because you’re going for a walk in the park?

I’m afraid some of my worst fears are being realized. The first real business meeting of the new Tucson City Council met on December 13, 2005. Without going into great detail, I would like to offer some impressions.

We’re in the hands of the commies!!!….sorry…O.K….some deep breaths.

It would appear that the “progressive majority,” for which Nina Trasoff was hoping, is firmly in place. The meeting opened with a sort of high school skit (you know, a bunch of people take turns speaking while cheerleaders hold up signs on cue in the background) performed by the Pima County Interfaith Council (PCIC).

The PCIC, by the way, is a classic example of a leftist organization hiding behind the veil of religion. Many of the programs for which they were seeking funding are classic government-as-parent projects that occupy the kids after school. They were seeking tax money as a major funding source. I heard no reference to God or Grace as playing any part in the saving of “our children and youth.”

In the past, I’ve described Tucson City Councilmen as being either “hardshell socialists,” or “softshell socialists.” Here’s what I mean. At the council meeting, the hardshells (Leal, Uhlich, Trasoff) were demanding big money for socialism right here, right now, and to hell with any other considerations. They argued that the current situation was “unjust” at its inception, and that expanded social programs would “prevent crime” and be “an investment in our future.” They seemed very certain that the unwashed masses were on the verge of destroying society, and that it was only common sense to step in and save it. The softshells (Walkup, West) agreed in principle with the hardshells, they’re objections were purely logistical. They said that the “funding should be discussed as part of the budget talks,” and that sort of thing. No one, I repeat, no one objected, in principle, to the socialist plans. The only difference was that the hardshells were foaming at the mouth, and the softshells were not.

If you think that Councilmen Uhlich and Trasoff are not socialists, consider this: both women, as candidates, objected to any fees for KIDCO. The fees in question did not exist for poor people. The fees that were charged to the affluent were token fees – much less than a dollar a day. This provided an additional income stream to the program which increased its financial stability. Remember, people who had trouble paying were subsidized one hundred per cent. So what’s the problem? Fees for service – even token gestures – are not pure socialism. Pure socialism is all government, all the time. The fees corrupted their ideal; they will accept nothing less. This was evident at the council meeting.

I can see it now, in 2009 Mayor Walkup will announce the subsidized sale of a limited supply of rice cookers – just like Fidel!