Tucson Sammy

I learned that Representative Giffords was shot shortly before leaving home on Saturday morning. I was preparing to co-host the Inside Track radio show with its owner, Emil Franzi.

We opened the show with what little we knew of the attack, and took a call. The caller wasted no time in blaming our show in particular, and talk radio in general, for inspiring the attack. He had no evidence, of course, nor did he have much in the way of reasoned thought, just the meme.

Good News Communications, which owns a number of radio stations including KVOI on which Inside Track is heard, organized a non-denominational prayer vigil for the victims of the Laughner attack. It was scheduled for 12:00 PM, on Sunday. My wife and I attended.

We arrived around noon, and stood quietly with others waiting for the event to begin. I noticed an acquaintance of mine talking to someone, a bit too loudly. I was not close by, but I caught phrases like “…Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, that’s why these things happen…..that bumper sticker, Voice of Freedom, that’s a right wing code word….” I thought of saying something, but checked myself and we moved farther away from her.

The head organizer addressed the crowd. He explained that the purpose of the event was to bring the community together in prayer, and that it was held in front of the old courthouse instead of a church to be inclusive of all faiths. I noticed that my acquaintance had disappeared – I guess she figured out that it was not a political rally. The speaker proceeded to deliver a tone-down-the-rhetoric speech. I cringed. Though it was a somewhat eloquent speech, it assumed that political rhetoric had something to do with the attack.

A new speaker stepped up to lead the gathering in prayer and a period of silent meditation. Finally, the speaker offered anyone an opportunity to recite a prayer aloud. I had a bad feeling about this. After a half a dozen or so prayers, an old guy with a ponytail was given the nod. It was not long before his“prayer” slipped into a rant with phrases like, “where were you when the haters passed SB1070!?”, and more subtle condemnations like, “and now they’re attacking the school children,” a reference, I assume, to the controversial TUSD La Raza Studies program. The speaker slowly walked over to where the pony-tailed guy was standing and whispered something. The pony-tailed guy got a few more licks in as the speaker walked away.

Sunday evening, I reluctantly took a look at Facebook. To my relief, most of my friends, regardless of their politics, were not engaged in finger-pointing or political opportunism. It was comforting.

These are some pretty heady times for primary education. The Obama administration rolled out its “Race to the Top” program to improve primary education, while, along with Congress, he virtually terminated a promising voucher program in Washington D.C. The citizens of Arizona voted to keep the “First Things First” program. The state legislature has outlawed the controversial “Ethnic Studies” program in the Tucson Unified School District, to which some teachers have responded with a lawsuit.

As I look at the battles, I am saddened to see that many of the participants do not simply disagree on policy, they seem to live in different worlds. In one world, “Ethnic Studies” promotes inclusion of Latino students while increasing their academic success, while in the other, Latino students are cut out of the rest of the students and taught separatism, and anti-Americanism. In one world, “First Things First” as a valuable preparation for kindergarten and beyond, while in the other it is a way to warehouse children of middle-class mom’s who prefer to go to Yoga class at the expense of the economically disadvantaged.

No progress toward some kind of resolution can be made without some common ground.

I decided, therefore, to avoid the fracas and try to gather some inside information from someone in the field. In these days of networking, I decided to check my address book and found a Democrat friend of near thirty years who runs an “Excelling” charter school in Tucson. His name is Gurumeet Khalsa and he is a director of the Khalsa Montessori Charter School. I’d like to reiterate that I’m presenting one educator’s ideas, not arguing for or against charter schools here.

Mr. Khalsa describes himself as an “education radical”, much of his thinking is indeed outside the traditional box.

The Montessori method itself, as he described it to me, is a departure from the traditional methods which “came out of the industrial age of the 1800’s when it was convenient to do that for political reasons and for reasons of scale”, referring to everybody doing the sme thing at the same time. The Montessori method focuses on the individual child who progresses at his own rate, with his own study plan. The teaching “follows the child.”

Mr. Kalsa is not a big fan of standardized testing, including AIMS. “Good test results doesn’t mean that they are getting educated. It means that they are able to regurgitate facts and take the silly little bubble tests.” He also mentioned that, “US News called University High School the best high school in the world, and the state of Arizona said it was a failing school – all in the same year.” He added, “They don’t judge character, they don’t judge artistic values, they don’t judge critical thinking, it’s quite a poor test they give the kids.”

I asked if there could be any valid measurement devices for kids or schools. He said that parents really must be involved with the school. He put the issue in perspective this way, “Everybody wants insurance in our society, everybody wants Social Security, everybody wants insurance, everybody wants to be taken care of, nobody wants to have any faults, and that’s what we’re stuck with. No risk.” He added that touring professionals would be helpful in rating schools, “but they would have their own biases about what they think a school should look like.” He said that parental participation is very high in his school, and the school encourages it. Some parents actually withdraw their children from the school because they ask them to participate too much.

Mr. Kalsa is big on school choice. “We have hundreds of millions of people in our country and I don’t think that they are all going to go in one direction. I think sometimes that the people who really squawk about it perhaps have a monetary stake in it, they don’t want to see parents have a choice. I think it’s important that families have a choice in what they want to do.”

Now, I disagree with my friend on many of his points, on some I agree. I was a bit surprised at some of common ground we shared, and that some of his perspectives were new to me.

We really should openly discuss ideas more before we draw the battle lines in the war for education.

At one point I asked Gurumeet, “So how’s your football program coming?” We both had a laugh.

It is a certainty that any government agency changes over time. The mission expands, changes, and sometimes is commandeered by a different constituency – often at odds with the original mission.

These ideas were probably in the minds of the authors of Prop 109 – the measure that, is passed by the people, would establish hunting as a constitutional right in the State of Arizona. The Arizona Department of Game and Fish was formed in 1929 to, well, manage game and fish. It was funded by the sale of licenses. Today, it manages “wildlife”, and in addition to license fees receives Heritage Fund money (until recently) from the state lottery.

A few years ago, Arizona Game and Fish was caught flatfooted when anti-hunting groups, through a ballot prop, banned trapping on public land – effectively ending trapping in Arizona. Whether or not one approves of trapping is irrelevant in regards to the point at hand. Hunting in Arizona now faced the subtle threat of Game and Fish receiving funding outside the hunting community, and the overt threat of the initiative process.

It should then be no surprise that people who wish to preserve hunting are responding in kind to the ballot prop threat – specifically, Prop 109. This, of course, has sent the anti-hunting crowd into a hissy fit. They are about to seen their weapon rendered much weaker, unless they defeat Prop 109.

The defeat of 109 is a problem. Most people are not all that concerned with hunting, nor do they have an aversion to it. They are certainly not going to get excited over defeating a referendum that will have no affect on them. The hunters, on the other hand, who feel under the gun (so to speak) will come out in droves to pass it. What to do?

Well, as luck would have it, there is a standard approach to getting disinterested people to go along. First, change the issue. Make it about “your voting rights”, a “power grab by politicians”, the “voting rights of citizens” – anything broad, scary, and different than the actual issue. the NOon109.com crowd these phrases in a pamphlet – I picked one up at a local vegetarian restaurant. By changing the subject to one with a broader appeal, they have a chance at defeating the measure.

Having broken the bonds of facts and truth regarding the nature of the measure, it is now easy to lie about the specifics. It has been said that “the best lie is the half-lie”. Here’s an example, “Management of wildlife practices would no longer be based on scientific expertise, but on partisan politics.” The implication is that Game and Fish will be subject to oversight by the legislature – which is true, and that this is a fundamental change – which is false, the legislature always exercised oversight of Game and Fish.

Anyway, a picture is worth a thousand words. Here are two:

On election day, we Arizonans will not only be choosing among the many candidates for office, but voting up or down on as many as ten ballot measures. While some may be as boring as determining for whom to vote for Mining Inspector, many are profoundly important and will affect our lives directly for years to come.

Here are my picks for most important. Vote “YES” on these.

Prop 106, Arizona Health Insurance Reform Amendment. A “yes” vote would bar any Arizonan from being forced into any healthcare plan, and it would secure the right of any Arizonan to purchase medical care on a fee for service basis. The addition of this amendment to the Arizona Constitution will present a challenge to recently passed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which would force people to purchase approved insurance products – the “individual mandate”. So, now the “commerce clause” not only allows the federal government to control everything we do, but it will control us absolutely – whether we are doing anything or not. Even if you like the federal legislation, a vote for this ballot prop will allow the legal issues to be resolved in court.

Prop 107, Arizona Civil Rights Amendment. A “yes” vote would end discrimination based on race, sex, and ethnicity in government at all levels. It is important to understand that “affirmative action” programs, which will be eliminated under the law, are not “equal opportunity programs”. In fact, they are quite contradictory. The ugly underlying assumption is that some people, by virtue of their race, are inferior to others and are not capable of competing on an equal footing. If you believe that to be true, go ahead and create all the programs you want – just do not ask the government to be involved.

Prop 113, Arizona Save Our Secret Ballot Amendment. A “yes” vote would require secret ballots for public offices and referenda, and designations of employee representation. This is a nationwide movement inspired by the looming federal legislation known as “card check” which would allow employees to fill out a card to be collected, instead of a secret ballot. The purpose of “card check” is to make it easier for unions to organize workers. I am certain that it will make it easier – particularly with employees who do not want their representation. Clearly, the idea is to enable intimidation and cheating by labor unions. Clint Bolick of the Goldwater Institute makes the point: “‘We feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose.’ So wrote Rep. George Miller (D-CA) and 15 colleagues in a 2001 letter to the Mexican government. Why then is Miller sponsoring legislation, now the Orwellian-named Employee Free Choice Act, that would eliminate the secret ballot for authorizing union representation in this country?” Even George McGovern (no right-winger here) is against this assault on the will of employees.

Prop 203, Arizona Medical Marijuana Act. A “yes” vote would allow Arizonans suffering from certain diseases to use small amount of marijuana medicinally without fear of arrest and prosecution. It is ironic that the federal government classifies marijuana as a Schedule One drug (morphine, cocaine, and methamphetamine are Schedule Two), virtually preventing medical research, then justifies the classification by saying that there is no medical application. So, we are left with measures such as Prop 203 to allow medical use in the raw form. The bottom line, of course, is whether your mind and body belongs to you or to the government.

Prop 302, Arizona First Things First Program Repeal. A “yes” vote would repeal the First Things First program, which is an early childhood services program, and put it’s $324 million into the general fund. The money would then be used for “health and human services for children”. I will not bother with the argument that parents, not the government, should be raising children. This program did pass as a referendum, so the people do not agree with me. It is strange, however, that this middle class benefit is funded primarily by taxing lower income working people through a tobacco tax. This is part two of the plan to balance the budget, the first being the one cent sales tax increase. If Prop 302 fails, the legislature will cut other child services, some of which might actually help poor children.

On July 29, some bills that passed the state Legislature and were signed by the governor became law. Included in these was SB 1070. Of course, there was a SB 1070-related protest, and counter-protest, downtown.

I like a good protest as much as anyone, but I had a celebration—of other laws going into effect—to attend elsewhere.

As I walked through Himmel Park, I ran into a friend. We chatted briefly, and I continued on my way. If my friend noticed the Glock model 21 pistol worn openly on my belt, he made no mention.

I soon came to a grove of trees near Treat Avenue, where 40 or so men and women were enjoying an all-American cookout with hamburgers and hot dogs—the works! Most were similarly armed.

I knew I had found the “Take Your Pistol for a Walk in the Park” party that I sought.

I saw the host of the party, liberty activist Ken Rineer, refilling the grills with dogs and burgers to keep up with the demand. It was in October 1996 that he met with Libertarian lawyer Ed Kahn and Tucson Police Department officers to have himself arrested. The purpose of the arrest was to create a case to challenge a recently enacted city ordinance that prohibited firearms in city parks—thus making the parks all the more attractive to robbers, rapists and the like.

Ken was recruited by Brassroots, a civil-rights organization that specializes in firearms issues, to risk heavy fines and jail time to take the city to court. The law was clearly on Ken’s side. The state of Arizona has a pre-emption statute that limits certain authority to the state government, including laws regarding firearms. Alas, courts being as they are in these modern times, Ken lost after the city appealed his initial victory, and the Arizona Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

OK, I know that many of you are thinking, “What the heck is it with these gun nuts? Is it so important that they have their guns in the park?” First, let me point out that many of my fellow party guests are not, in fact, “gun nuts,” or even enthusiasts. In fact, were you to ask Ken why there are as many as three different twist rates in AR-15 rifles, I doubt he could tell you.

The firearms issue lends focus to the greater issue of liberty, which is the issue we all hold in common. It is true that you could say that possessing a gun in the park is not in itself all that important, just as you could say that where you sit on the bus is not all that important—but only if you were ignorant of the greater issue at hand.

Activism goes on. When it became fashionable to post “no firearms” signs in the windows of businesses, Brassroots was there to point out that while it is certainly the right of a business to ban guns from the premises, in doing so, those businesses would lose a large block of customers. Most, realizing that customers are more important than fashion, came around pretty quickly. Phil Murphy, a past president of Brassroots, recalled addressing the issue with a specialty retailer that sold erotic paraphernalia and clothing. Exotic dancers, who shop there for clothing, were made particularly vulnerable during their late-night shopping and were ready to make noise about it. This situation was presented to the store’s manager, who contacted the home office, and within 40 hours, the signs came down.

Charles Heller—a radio personality, the secretary of Arizona Citizens Defense League (AZCDL) and an all-round good guy—spoke of the accomplishments in which the AZCDL (azcdl.org) played a crucial role. Though it was an impressive list, the most relevant to today’s celebration was the state legislation that strengthened the pre-emption statute regarding guns and knives, and legislation authorizing “constitutional carry,” meaning that you could carry your weapon discreetly or otherwise without a permission slip from the government, as the United States Constitution and Arizona Constitution guarantee.

It is not often that liberty activists have cause to celebrate, or that Ken, Phil, Charles and others actually see positive outcomes resulting from their efforts. Yet on July 29, while political theater raged downtown, men and women peacefully celebrated in the park, and remembered a 14-year-long struggle.

One philosophy holds that the best we can do for this imperfect world is set a few rules against force and fraud, and work to make it better as individuals. In practice, the world remains imperfect, but the aggregate of individual efforts creates a collection of benefits that is inconceivable by any one individual or committee.

Another philosophy holds that the world is imperfect, but with enough force and rules, the world can be ridded of most imperfections. In practice, the world remains imperfect—and many unforeseen and unintended consequences are created, most of which are bad.

A good example of the latter philosophy is Arizona’s Clean Elections Act, passed in 1998 by referendum. Many people thought that state elections were rife with imperfections, most of which centered around financing. It was thought that by controlling the money, the influence of “special interests” would be eliminated; voter participation would be increased; the field of candidates would be made larger; and that third-party participation would increase. These were the promises of the legislation.

In practice, of course, it turned out much differently. Voter participation has not changed, nor are there more candidates. The participation of third parties has remained the same. In the words of Sarah Fenske of the Phoenix New Times, “If the system’s not getting any cleaner, and the candidates aren’t getting any better, what’s the point?”

Yet it is not the failure (the “world remains imperfect”) that should give one pause; rather, it is the “unforeseen and unintended consequences” that assault some of our basic liberties, like the right to free speech.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that political contributions are a form of speech. So what happens to that right when it collides with “Clean Elections”? Well, let’s say that you wanted to express your support of Rano Singh Sidhu in his 2006 race against Dean Martin for state treasurer. You may consider cutting him a check, but wait—he signed up for “Clean Elections” (candidate welfare), and cannot accept your support. Instead, he’s getting $121,253 from the government; that’s not a lot of speech when you’re looking at 2.5 million voters.

So, next time, you say, “I will only support a traditional candidate, not a welfare candidate.” You cut a check to your favorite traditional candidate—and he returns it, explaining that he is already at the level of the welfare candidate’s funding, and any more money he receives will be “matched” by the state and given to his opponent.

It’s actually worse. The “matching” of funds not only applies to the traditional campaign, but to independent groups who speak in favor of the traditional candidate.

My favorite example is the traditional candidate who is in a race with two welfare candidates: Every contribution over the base amount goes to both candidates. So if you send your candidate $100, a total of $200 ($100 each) goes to your candidate’s opponents.

Is this nuts or what? Fortunately, the Institute for Justice just got a break from the U.S. Supreme Court regarding their suit against the matching-funds provision (McComish v. Bennett). After a favorable decision from the U.S. District Court, it was reversed by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; then the U.S. Supreme Court not only agreed to hear the case, but reinstated an injunction against any matching-funds payments. As one of the lead attorneys in the case, Bill Maurer, said, “The purpose of this law was to limit individuals’ speech by limiting their spending. But the First Amendment does not permit the government to restrain Americans from robustly exercising the right of free speech.” Amen.

It’s often said that there is too much money in electoral politics. What does that mean—too much speech? Too much information? Too much engagement? How much is too much? As George Will pointed out when referring to the 2008 presidential election, “Americans volunteering to fund the dissemination of speech about candidates for the nation’s most consequential office will contribute $1 billion, which is about half the sum they spend annually on Easter candy.”

The whole notion of controlling speech, or that too much speech is bad, offends both our Constitution and our culture. “Clean Elections” should be sent to the ash bin of history.