Tucson Sammy

I was listening to a radio program the other day during which topic of “charitable giving” was discussed. A caller, who claimed to be an immigrant from the Soviet Union, stated that the Soviet government always told the people that charitable giving was bad because it was demeaning to the recipient. That reminded me of an October 13, 2005 article in the Tucson Weekly by Jim Nintzel entitled “Numbers Racket,” in which he reported the following:

“Uhlich argues that establishing a sliding scale is a bad idea because ‘people don’t want charity.’ She bristles at the notion that a day-care program that’s free for all citizens could be characterized as charity.”

Karin Uhlich is the newly elected Councilman for Ward III. It is not known if she ever served in the government of the Soviet Union.

With all this fresh in my mind, I read an email from my friend Charles Heller. He was giving me a “heads-up” about a speaker luncheon sponsored by the Goldwater Institute. The speaker was Clint Bolick, and his topic was “the growth of local government and the erosion of liberty,” or “grassroots tyrrany” as he calls it. I repeatedly fumbled the telephone as I furiously dialed Phoenix to make my reservation.

The event was held here in Tucson at the Loew’s Ventana Canyon Resort. I showed up a little early, and was treated with warmth and deference by the greeters. I don’t know why, but I’m often treated as a person of consequence by people who don’t know me. Maybe it’s the way I tie my tie – a tight Windsor knot, complete with dimple; or more likely, just being a new face.

The hall was a typical boring affair with a podium and lectern at one end, and round tables filling the room. There were about a dozen tables-for-eight with twelve place settings each. I sat at a table in the back near the door. On my way there, I saw Charles and thanked him for informing me of the event. He was in the middle of telling a seated couple of his unfortunate experience with some federal “law enforcement” officers who confiscated a number of firearms that he was legally transporting – in addition to other “weapons” such as his Leatherman Multitool.

As I sat alone, I began to get the sinking feeling that I would endure this luncheon with a table full people who I did not know, and who did not care to know me. A young woman who ran a Christian school joined me, and was quite nice. We were chatting when who should walk by but my old friend Ed Kahn! When he agreed to sit next to me and join our table, I knew I was saved.

For those of you who do not know Ed Kahn, he is a semi-retired Tucson lawyer who approaches life with a warmth and lightness only found in men of faith (he is a devout Catholic) – with, of course, a libertarian heart. He has run for a number of elected offices, including Mayor of Tucson, and has had more fun as a candidate than any of his opponents. Sitting at our table, he was animated in his conversation – a sort of cross between P.J. O’Rourke and Rodney Dangerfield.

We were joined by a man and woman, a young man from the Goldwater Institute, and Dave Mason – a local computer expert who also hosts Computer Talk, a local radio talk show on KVOI 690 AM.

You can imagine the synergy between the free-market computer guy, libertarian lawyer, and libertarian blogger! Dave related an anecdote involving a state college that received a bunch of computers from Apple at no charge, and then proceeded to sell them through their bookstore at prices well below retail. They were putting the local Apple dealers out of business, and Apple had to sue them to try and get them to stop. We all noted some local examples of government competing with the free market – the U of A Health Club, and the Udall Center to name a couple. Ed said that, in his business, he charges a premium to retirees because, as he said, “Why should I charge a young couple, who are just starting out with little money, the same as some retired millionaire?” Then he added the icing to the cake, “So I called up the City Equal Opportunity Department and left a message saying, ‘Hey, I’m engaging in age discrimination, come shut me down.’” They never called him back. I love this guy!

After the desert and coffee came – a delicious raspberry/chocolate torte (not the legal kind) – the master of ceremonies took to the lectern. She was a fetching young woman named Darcy Olsen. After describing the history and mission of the Goldwater Institute, Darcy discussed some of the areas in which Clint Bolick has been engaging the enemy. She asked if everyone has heard that Arizona is ranked 49th or 50th in education spending, and of course, we all had. Then she went on to explain that, in addition to Arizona, there were at least twelve other states ranked 49th or 50th in education spending. She went on to describe that the roughly $5,000.00 per pupil expenditures claimed for Arizona government schools was actually closer to $8,500.00, which is enough to send two children to the average private school in Arizona. It just got better from there!

Eventually, the fetching Miss Darcy introduced Clint Bolick. To my disappointment, Mr. Bolick did not provide a list of tactics that would confound local tyrants – this is important for Tucsonans who find themselves with a new City Council comprised of four leftists, two moderates, and a RINO mayor.

In any event, he told a couple of inspirational stories involving clients whom he represented in legal fights with cities. One case involved a very successful business in which the owners braided hair in corn rows. The city of Washington D.C. sent a cop to their door with an order to either close their business, or go to cosmetology school where the would become proficient in doing nails, and experts in hairstyles from the fifties! Another involved a Mr. Leroy Jones who drove a cab for the Yellow Cab company in the city of Denver. He realized that certain poor neighborhoods were not being well served by existing cab companies; so, as any good American would do, he quit Yellow to start his own company which would serve this niche market. He and his partners ran the numbers, got the capital, and arranged for the vehicles. Unfortunately, he was denied a business license because he could not prove that existing companies were incapable of serving his target market – a ridiculous standard, impossible to meet. He ended up selling soda during games at Mile High Stadium. He lost his case; but the story does not end there. He attracted some media attention. He was filmed at his new job at the stadium. When the Star Spangled Banner was played, he stopped, took his hat off, and shed a tear.

If you are not choked up yourself at this point, you really need to move to France or Sweden.

Bowing to public outrage, the city issued his license. He named his new company “Freedom Cabs.”

With all the talk of impact fees and trash taxes in this campaign for City Council, no one has mentioned the issue of civil rights; specifically, the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Now, I understand that some might feel uncomfortable in defining the umbrella of “Civil Rights” as to include anything other than oppression based on race. Fine. Gun control laws are rooted in racism. That’s right, most of the “gun control” laws on the books today are remnant “Jim Crow” laws. They were enacted to keep black people defenseless, in their place, and available for lynching. After the Civil War, Tennessee and Arkansas banned inexpensive handguns (sound familiar?) figuring that they were the only type poor black people could afford. The very term “Saturday Night Special” is a sanitized adaptation of the phrase “N—–town Saturday Night”.

The Civil Rights movement of the fifties and sixties led to the repeal of most of those despicable laws that targeted black people – most, but not the gun laws, which are now expanded to apply to everyone except politicians, rich lawyers, Hollywood celebrities, and criminals.

Not to be left out, the Federal Government passed into law the Gun Control Act of 1968. United States Senator Thomas Dodd (Chris Dodd’s father) participated in post World War II tribunals in Germany. He developed quite a collection of Nazi law. In fact, it was the Nazi Gun Control Act of 1938 that he sent to the Library of Congress for translation, and then introduced on the floor of the Senate as the U.S. Gun Control Law of 1968. A law that he felt was necessary after witnessing widespread rioting in mostly black neighborhoods after the assassination of Dr. King. This has been well documented by the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

Feel comfortable now?

There is an irresistible, though dishonest, template with which the anti-rights crowd attacks gun shows. Irresistible because attacking gun shows gives them a shot at gun ownership, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly all in one action – a threefer!

Our local example involves the McMann/Roadrunner Gun Show that for years has been held at the Civic Center downtown. The local anti-rights crowd, using the template, tried to shut it down. The National Rifle Association sued the City on behalf of McMann/Roadrunner and lost. The fight went from the courts to the council. Republicans Dunbar, Ronstadt, and Democrat Shirley Scott sided with preserving the right. The Democrats generally voted to infringe upon the right. The Democrats were joined by Republican Mayor Uncle Bob Walkup, who went to heroic lengths to kill the show – but that is a story for another election cycle.

Dunbar and Ronstadt have a pro-rights record. Records speak louder than words. We really need to hear from the Democrat challengers, Uhlich and Trasoff. In the unlikely event that they are pro-rights, I would like to hear it from them. Now, I know that not all Democrats are against gun rights, but last time I checked, Zell Miller was not running for Tucson City Council.

The question needs to be asked because it goes way beyond gun ownership. It goes to the heart of the relationship between the government and the citizenry, in our community and our country. A politician’s position on this issue reveals how he or she sees his or her constituents – as latent criminals waiting to happen or fellow citizens, as rabble in need of control or fellow Tucsonans proud to be responsible for themselves and their families.

If you get a chance between now to November eighth, ask the Democrat challengers where they stand on “gun control”. Their simple answer will tell us so much.

Now that the primary is over, Democrats Steve Leal, Nina Trasoff, and Karin Uhlich will attempt to win their respective races, and create what Trasoff described as a “Progressive Majority” on the Tucson City Council. What affect will this have on our fair city? Let’s look:

Civil Rights: The current battleground of this movement is the gun rights issue. As many of you know, the despicable Jim Crow laws of the past have been removed from the books – all except those related to the possession of firearms, which have been expanded to include everyone. Expect the Democrats to team up with Republican Mayor Uncle Bob Walkup and further restrict firearms (if that’s possible) at the municipal level, and finally succeed in their effort to force the McMann-Roadrunner Gun Show out of Tucson. Do not believe the lie about the gun purchasing “loophole” at gun shows; there is no such thing. The attack on gun shows is an effort to intimidate, and deny the right of free assembly and association – something you would think the Democrats would fight for, rather than fight against.

“Living Wage” Ordinance: This was an issue championed by the Green candidate the last time around. If other cities are any indication, expect the Democrats to employ members of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) as the shock troops with which to push this ordinance. This is one of ACORN’s pet issues. Contrary to the propaganda that the “Living Wage” ordinance will “help families”; its true purpose is to shut unskilled workers out of the job market by creating an artificially high minimum wage, making those workers unemployable. This creates a dependency class, and shifts the work to higher waged union workers – that, my friends, is the object of the exercise.

Transit: This is another one of those areas where the Left totally abandons reality in favor of recreating the world in their vision of utopia. Let’s be honest, almost everybody prefers personal point to point, on demand transportation to buses that transport groups of people to a point near their destinations, after they wait around a while. Why do Democrat politicians want to lower the standard of living of the people of Tucson – people other than themselves? Expect no change to the government enforced monopolies that Suntran and the Taxis enjoy, expansion of the bus system (50 year old thinking), and perhaps a resurrection of a “Light Rail” trolley (100 year old thinking).

Gee! Will voting for Republicans save us? Nope. When pressed on any issue hard enough, they usually fall in line with the Democrats. Neither party is interested in new, creative solutions to anything. When did you ever hear a Republican say something like, “Wait a minute here. Why don’t we get rid of the laws that protect the buses and taxis from competition? Why, I’ll bet that there are thousands of people in Tucson who would come up with innovative solutions for underserved transportation markets, and if they can make money at it, then everybody wins!”? Republicans get elected not because they have fresh ideas; they get elected because they are not as bad as the Democrats. With the Republicans, you get the “Road to Serfdom” – Friedrich Hayek. With the Democrats, you get the “Toboggan Ride to Tyranny” – Vin Suprynowicz.

I think that I have finally calmed down enough to speak of the recent Kelo court decision. I really cannot add to the New Media commentary that has expressed the disgust we all feel – with the exception of Susan Zakin, of course.

I can, however, bring it home for ya. Who among us has not traveled to Sonora? Do we not remember the transformations from Arizona, to the boarder area (A sort of third state in itself), to Sonora? There is a marked lack of prosperity south of the border. A big reason for the lack of prosperity south of the border is lack of property rights.

There is little industry there, as compared to here, because there is no incentive to create wealth. Any wealth created by a peasant (someone without connections to, or part of, a ruling family) will surely be lost sooner or later. Without wealth creation, the existing wealth is passed around by the elites, and the peasants content themselves with a subsistence living below the radar. After all, why bust your ass to build a business, or a house (particularly in New London on the shore) if it can be taken from you by some rich person with the help of the government?

If this decision is allowed to stand, then the next generation truly will be less prosperous than this one. Am I suggesting that we’ll become another Mexico? No, there will be no prosperous neighboring country to providing an influx of cash – it will be worse.

Note: this is a rewrite of an ealier posting which contained factual errors – thanks for your patience.

O.K., Let’s walk through this. As long as I can remember, it has been illegal to go into a bar with a gun in Arizona. There are, of course, exceptions: 1, law enforcement officers; 2, Owners of the establishment; 3, employees of the establishment with owner permission. The argument is that people go to bars to become intoxicated, intoxicated people go on murderous rampages; therefore, only unarmed people can enter bars so that when they become murderous they can’t do as much damage. The lie to this argument is inherent in the exceptions. Are armed and drunken police officers really so much safer than armed and drunken civilians?

Even if you answered “Yes!”, consider the another lie to the argument: when they say “bars”, they really mean any establishment that serves open adult beverages. Think about that. How many restaurants that you patronize sell beer, how many don’t?

Imagine going to a pizza joint for a dinner out with your spouse, and before you open the door to the establishment you notice a neon Budweiser sign in the window. Dang! You walk back to your car and think about where you’re going to put it…under the seat? No, you know at least two people who have had their pistols stolen that way. Hmmmm… glove box? Yea right! So you stash it in the vehicle, look around to see if anyone was watching, and go back to the restaurant to enjoy your “Meat Lover’s” and RC Cola, which you would have enjoyed were you not wondering if you were going to join the list of those who hang their heads and say something like, “Yea, I used to have this really nice .357 that my dad gave me when I graduated. It was his father’s. No, it was stolen out of my car in a parking lot.”

Someone finally noticed that the vast majority of people affected by the law were not going out to get intoxicated at all; in fact, many were not even having a beer with dinner. So, to make the law more reasonable, Senate Bill 1363 was written to allow armed people to go out to dinner if they did not drink. A common sense, no-brainer, right? Not quite.

The usual suspects (Leftist politicians, Leftist newspaper writers, police unions, etc.) came out in force against what they called the “Guns in Bars” bill. The usual moronic arguments were made: 1, Just because the person isn’t drinking doesn’t mean he won’t turn into a crazed killer if he’s in the proximity of alcohol with his gun; 2, You can’t expect some schlub to have the Jedi-like power over weapons that policemen have; 3, Criminals get into fights in bar parking lots, so, obviously, the guy going to the pizza parlor with his wife will too.

So Governor Janet Napolitano (you may remember Janet Napolitano as one of the Clinton administration lawyers who participated in the “high-tech lynching” of Clarence Thomas) vetoed SB1363.

How does it feel to know that the Governor of the State of Arizona sees you as a murderer waiting to happen?