Tucson Sammy

Isabel Garcia is in the news again. This time she participated in a rather vulgar display of fear and loathing during a protest against the presence of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio at the Borders Book Store right here in the Old Pueblo.

For those of you unfamiliar with Ms. Garcia, she is a co-chair of Coalicion de Derechos Humanos ( that’s “Human Rights Coalition” for you gringos), and when she’s not attending a protest, she heads up Pima County’s Legal Defender office. The Legal Defender is similar to the Public Defender, only separate… go figure.

Ms. Garcia is, of course, untouchable, and beyond criticism, but Jon Justice apparently did not get the memo.

I must take a moment to comment on Mr. Justice’s parents’ choice of “Jon” for his first name. How boring! They could have picked something clever like “Street”, “Cowboy”, or even “Owtfer.”

Anyway, Mr. Justice hosts a local radio talk show which he used to promote the ideas that Ms. Garcia should be fired from her County position, arrested for violated a string of laws, and sent to a psychiatrist.

This stuff can be read on the show blog for a good laugh. As with most absurd humor, it is the grain of truth contained therein that makes it work. The one redeeming aspect of this particular kerfuffle is its entertainment value.

So, what did Ms. Garcia do that made Mr. Justice see red? As I mentioned earlier, she attended the protest of Joe Arpaio where she cheered on the two children who beat an effigy of the good sheriff to pieces, then Ms. Garcia picked up the dismembered head, held it aloft, and paraded around the parking lot with it.

If you really want to laugh out loud (that would be LOL for you teenagers), read the postings at the Coalicion de Derechos Humanos website. Watch the video of the incident on YouTube, then read their description. They try to paint a picture resembling the scene in “Napoleon Dynamite” where the smiling blindfolded children swing at a piñata, in the image of Pedro’s opponent, hanging in a tree; but it really looked like the Rodney King beating with a cheering section, with kids instead of cops. Nice try guys!

My favorite part is where Ms. Garcia whines about threats to her job and free speech rights. She then launches a campaign that threatens Mr. Justice’s job, and the station for which he works. She says that the radio station proffers “hate speech”, and implores people to “demand accountability from those who would support hate media.” Yes, and the dismembered head was all warmth and fuzzy bunnies.

You can’t make this stuff up!

On the serious side, I like honest discourse, particularly with open-minded parties. That’s kinda how it works in free societies. If people can change their minds of their own accord through objective review, then everyone is happy and the truth often prevails. In less free societies, a more tyrannical approach of vilification and hatred toward those with whom one disagrees seems to carry the day.

Why do you suppose that Ms. Garcia chooses the tyrannical approach? It’s not as if there are no specific accusations of unethical and even criminal behavior against Joe Arpaio – everything from vindictive retaliations to suspicious jail deaths have been reported. Why does she not build a case? She’s a lawyer after all. I suspect that if she made a cogent argument for Arpaio’s removal, in the way that Mr. Justice made a case for her removal, there would be no fight. Perhaps he fight is what it is all about.

By the way (BTW), am I the only one who is bothered by the use of children in this mess, particularly in the role of ceremonial sheriff killers? I am really glad that the children were not old enough to be in AmeriCorps. Watching them beat the effigy in those brown shirts that they wear would not have been the least bit humorous.

Let me start by saying that San Tan Flat is in no way connected with Tortilla Flat. There are no tee shirts that say, “Where the Hell is San Tan Flat?” Although new to Arizona, San Tan Flat has enjoyed a level of publicity unknown to Tortilla Flat.

Our story begins with a father and son, Dale and Spencer Bell. Dale has operated successful restaurants in both South Dakota and Wyoming. He and his son, Spencer, opened their new venture in Pinal County, Arizona, on the flats next to the San Tan Mountains – hence the name.

After three years of jumping through hoops, they finally opened on 2005 with Pinal County’s blessing. Shortly thereafter, Pinal County began to harass them mercilessly. They made them remove one of their two signs, reduced their road access from four entrances to one, and they made them build a bigger parking lot. They also sent deputies out at night to measure decibel levels.

This sort of behavior usually indicates that some well-connected turgid member of the community wants him out of Dodge. In the older frontier times, they usually just sent the Sheriff around to tell him, “Be out of town by sundown.” These are less direct, less honest, weenie times.

Dale complied with all the harassing demands, until they turned their sights on his customers. They claimed it was illegal for them to dance to the music in the courtyard. They cited an ordinance from 1962 that required “dance halls, penny arcades, and bowling alleys” to be in fully enclosed structures. San Tan Flat is a restaurant bar. As Dale said to me, “I’ve never seen a penny arcade in my lifetime, I’ve never been able to put a penny in a machine and have it do anything, I don’t know how old you are, but I’m an old guy…this thing is pretty obsolete even in its language.” With the help of the Arizona chapter of the Institute for Justice, Dale went to court.

The Pinal County attorneys stated, at four separate times during the initial hearing, that the supervisors thought the outdoor stage at the Country Western Saloon and Steakhouse would be used for “mimes, puppet shows, poetry readings, and art displays.” Why, of course! Any cowboy worth his salt needs a little miming, and poetry read to him every now and again. Those dang Bell Boys deceived us!

Dale has determined that upstanding member of the community Pinal County Supervisor Sandy Smith is directing the attacks against him. It is her appointee, the Pinal County Sheriff, who sends his deputies out three times a night to test the decibel levels. So far, they have had no luck.

I asked Dale why Sandy Smith was trying to make his life miserable. He answered, “Why is she doing it? Possibly petty jealousy over the success of the business, possibly because we did not grovel, or kiss her butt, which is apparently what she was expecting us to do after we were open and permitted.” He had some other ideas that involved millionaire developers, but it’s all just speculation.

The silver lining to this dark cloud is that the longer it drags on, the more support the Bells get – from George Will, who wrote of their plight in his Washington Post column, to Dale and Spencer’s customers. Dale said of his customers, “They don’t say they like it, they say they love it!”

The significance of this case lies not so much in the fact that the petty commissars of Pinal County are being exposed; rather it verifies what we in the freedom movement have come to realize over the past few years.

Traditionally, it was government at the federal level that sent edicts from far away for the great unwashed, doing away with federalism, and exceeding its limited jurisdiction in a rather tyrannical way. It seemed to make sense that when people are reduced to numbers and formulas, they would be treated like them. Now we see those close to us, here at home, behaving in similar fashion. Whether they use eminent domain, civil forfeiture, or “Smart Growth” central planning, our locals have a lust to control people, and property that they do not own.

As the bizarre case of San Tan Flat exemplifies, it is not the remoteness of the power that is corrupting. It is the power itself.

 

 Bizarre Case of San Tan Flat [5:48m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Our Great and Wonderful Council is back at it. They’re considering some form of cell phone ban – in cars for now.

The impetus is typical – Phoenix is doing it. We tend to have a condescending attitude toward our neighbor to the north, yet we continue to copy their bad ideas (the “light rail” effort comes to mind).

Ibarra, Scott, West, and Uncle Bob Walkup all want to see something done either at the municipal or state level. Speaking of the state level, Mr. Light Rail himself, Steve Farley, has been working on it – unsuccessfully so far.

The merits of multi-tasking in one’s car are really not the important issue. The important issue is what this effort says about how you are viewed by your elected officials. Are you an adult with adult judgment, or are you a child who will wreak all kinds of havoc without big brother’s watchful eye upon you? It used to be that laws would help us defend ourselves against force and fraud. Now they seemed to be there to micromanage our lives for our own good. Don’t eat that! Don’t discard that piece of plastic! You can have this kind of car. Keep your hands on the wheel and stare forward! Don’t think that thought or you’re a hate criminal! That’s better… good boy!

It would appear that Councilman Nina Trasoff has really stepped in the cowpie this time. According to an article in the Red Star by Bob Odell, published on April 29, 2007 (here’s a link: http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/180653.php ), Nina set up a complex real estate sale/lease deal that would have subsidized a downtown arts group to a six figure tune, with the potential of costing the City $1.2 million if things did not go well.

I wonder, considering the complexity of the deal, how firm a grip Nina had on this thing. I could be a case of “Staff Gone Wild!” either in the Ward, or the City Real Estate Department, or both. Either way, it belongs to her.

It’s interesting that the rest of the Council did not “circle the wagons” around one of their own – particularly a fellow Democratic. They also did not let the thing be removed from the agenda without discussion – something that they do for each other to avoid embarrassment, according to a friend of mine who served on the Council.

This does not bode well for her political future, particularly when she appears to be short on friends in high places, and her popular support is waning. Fortunately, her next election is 2009. There is plenty of time for people to forget this episode, and see her lovely smile on television – not to mention the coquettish charm she has in person.

I am willing to bet that many of you wonder why the crooks at City of Tucson Waste Management were reinstated in their City jobs after they were fired for cheating on the time clock. I think I can explain the situation with an anecdote.

Many moons ago, I had a friend who worked for the City. She worked in the Tucson, Pima County Public Library (it was owned jointly then). She worked as a manager of a small department, and supervised two to three people.

We were chatting once, and she talked about work, about how much she liked her job. She said that she really liked the people with whom she worked – except for one.

I asked about the one she disliked – I’ll refer to her as “Amy”. She told me that Amy did not do her work. I asked if she meant that Amy was slow, or did she commit many errors. No, she did not do her work. In fact, my friend asked her boss if she could tell Amy to stay home and just mail her check to her. In so doing, my friend would have freed up valuable time that she wasted trying to explain to Amy that which she was supposed to do, but apparently could not.

I thought that I must be missing something. I figured that if I kept talking, I would pick it up. I suggested that Amy might be terminated. “You can’t fire anyone,” my friend told me. This gave me pause. I had heard that government jobs were relatively secure, but this was something else.

“Who has the authority to fire Amy?”, I asked. She told me that the authority was hers. I felt as if I had moved from missing something, to not seeing anything. I backed up a little, and asked why she could not fire anyone – particularly someone who did not do her work.

She explained that she could fire her, but then Amy would appeal the firing to the independent review commission (I forget the formal title of the commission), and the commission always reinstates the employee. I asked why it always sides with the employee.

The answer is a simple case of incentive. You see, if the employee is reinstated, the case is over, and the employee is no longer the commission’s problem. There is no recourse for the City, and the employee has what he wants. On the other hand, if the firing is sustained, the employee can retaliate in any number of ways. For example, he can sue the City and the commission, or he can go to the media and make a public stink that might draw negative attention to the commission. If he is a member of a protected group, both those efforts are slam-dunks.

The commission is so independent that it serves its own interests, rather than fulfilling its responsibilities to the City and the employee.

And that, my friends, is why City of Tucson employees cannot be fired.

I just added a piece to the “Articles” section in the column at the right – the title is “Street Protests in the New Millennium.” It covers an anti-Bush protest/counter protest. Note that the anti-Semites have a home on the Left; if you’re still in doubt regarding this, read Jimmy Carter’s latest book.

I did not mention, in the article, that I ran into a couple of friends there. They were on the anti-Bush side. They were full-on kook-fringe types. I’ll bet that when they sit down to talk national politics, it’s not about whether or not “No Child Left Behind” is working, it’s about whether or not Bush is the Anti-Christ. (I actually have a Democrat friend who made that suggestion)

Now, I have many policy and philosophical differences with President Bush. He’s certainly no libertarian, nor is he particularly conservative, but I do not feel the need to create a fantasy world in which President Bush vacillates between being an evil genius and a total moron. I think he’s a good man, just wrong on a lot of stuff.

I’m sure some of you are thinking, “Yeah, well, you sure were critical of Clinton when he was president.” C’mon, you don’t have to pay close attention to see the difference. I’m not aware of anyone who called Clinton evil, or a Nazi, much less the Anti-Christ. President Clinton was criticized for illegalities ranging from hosing the subordinate at the workplace on the clock (textbook sexual harassment), to selling missile technology to the People’s Republic of China for campaign money (illegal campaign funding). When he did stuff that the conservatives liked (NAFTA, welfare reform), they praised him. Is that sort of fair treatment too much to expect from Democrats regarding Bush?

Anyway, I asked one of my friends, an older woman, why she hated Bush so much. She said that he’s destroying the Constitution. I challenged her to give me an example of his extra-constitutional activities. She told me that he appointed judges when Congress was not in session.

“Yes,” I said, “They’re called ‘recess appointments’”.

“I know what they’re called,” she said, acting a little offended.

I explained that recess appointments were not some evil thing that Karl Rove developed in the White House basement. They’ve been around for a long time. She said that she new that, but Bush made a lot of them.

I pointed out that if the Democrats had not blocked the voting with filibusters, he would not have to make any recess appointments. I was about to point out that if anyone created a new evil thing with which to destroy the Constitution, it was the Democrats and their new application of the filibuster which changed the votes necessary to confirm a judge from a simple majority to a de-facto super majority!

Alas, I could feel my anger rising along with my voice; worse yet, I could see the same thing beginning in my friend. I changed the subject. We finished our conversation saying that it was nice that we could be friends and disagree, blah, blah, blah.

Though I failed in my quest for reasoned conversation, I witnessed some successes that day when other people crossed over to the other side and spoke one on one.

There is always hope.