Tucson Sammy

I’m just a little curious. Does anyone else find the objections to SB 1214, the legislation that would exempt CCW permit holders from the weapons bans on state college campuses, a bit creepy? I mean, what does it say about how the people who make those objections see other people?

The fascinating thing about SB 1214 is that it removes any reasonable objection to the presence of guns on government campuses by making it a privilege available only to CCW permit holders; in other words, only to those who are twenty-one and older, have had background checks, education in the law regarding the use of deadly force, training in safe firearm handling and maintenance, and have had demonstrated competency at the shooting range.

Yet, the objections remain. There exists a blind faith belief in “Gun Free Zones.” Guns remain objects of fear and disgust. You know that their argument is lost when they fall back to politically correct “yes men” - in this case, police chiefs and college presidents. Now, it is true that while the jobs of the chiefs and presidents are primarily administrative, they are also largely political, and they are occasionally called upon to give pious politically correct proclamations.

I have said this before, but it still bothers me. Why does the same state that issues the permits, reject the authority of the permits when it comes to state property? Clearly, the state does not believe in its own permit system.

Actually, though, there is a dirty little secret. Here’s how you can have fun with it: ask a gun-hating friend, “Do you think campuses should be Gun Free Zones?” He’ll say, “Of course!” You say, “Did you know that the campus police carry guns?” He’ll say, “Well, yeah, but that’s different.” You’ll say, “Why?” He’ll give you a weird look and say, “C’mon, law enforcement officers are educated in the law regarding the use of lethal force, they’ve had background checks, they have training in weapons handling, and they have to demonstrate competency at the range! That’s what makes it safe for them to be armed.” He’ll give you an even stranger look because he won’t know why you’re laughing. Before you loose his attention, ask, “Would you support requiring cops to check their weapons before entering campus to maintain the integrity of the Gun Free Zone, or are you rethinking the whole idea?” At this point he will probably try to avoid the point by changing the subject, and even get a little angry.

Feel free to keep him going as long as you can. You will not change his mind – it is like a religion – but it can be entertaining.

So, the dirty little secret is that neither side really wants Gun Free Zones. Those who dislike and fear guns want exemptions for trained and authorized government agents only, while supporters of the bill want exemptions for trained and authorized civilians too.

Alas, I must apologize. I kept describing the people who object to SB 1214 as fearing and disliking guns. This obviously is untrue, since they are quite comfortable around guns that hang from the utility belts of policemen. The difference is not the guns, but the bearers. These folks do not fear and dislike guns, they fear and dislike other people, and are calmed by an overpowering government. That’s creepy.

The subject header said “Breaking News”, the body of the email said, “William F. Buckley Jr. died Wednesday morning at 82…” I uttered “No!” Not the “No!” of an angry person, or the “no” said in answer to a question, but the plaintive “No!” of someone who just suffered a great personal loss.

Buckley had a profound effect on the politics and culture of our country, but it was people of my generation (now in our fifties) with whom he connected in an almost personal way. That was certainly true of me.

My first exposure to Buckley, also known by his signature line “WFB”, was while viewing his PBS television show, Firing Line. The first thing that struck me was the theme music: Brandenburg Concerto No. 2 in F Major, Third Movement (Allegro assai), by Bach – WFB was a big Bach guy, and this piece was his favorite. The studio set consisted of two chairs, one for WFB, and one for his guest, that’s it. As I watched I thought, “Why is this guy slouching so low in his chair that he’s about to fall out, and why can’t he smooth out his suit and take his hand off the side of his face?” Yet, his interviews and speeches on the show were crack for the intellect.

I had a subscription to National Review, a magazine founded by WFB in 1955, for years in my early twenties. Most young men with subscriptions to National Review received them as unsolicited birthday gifts from Republican grandfathers – I paid for mine. It was a source of great hope and solace during troubling times (the Carter years).

Many of today’s prominent conservatives have spoken of WFB’s influence on them as youths – from Rush Limbaugh to Michael Medved. Medved actually began adult life as a liberal Democrat, but became a conservative later in life; you can read about his experience in his autobiography, Right Turns. My experience was of the Medved model. In fact, I usually don’t tell people this, but I voted for George McGovern in 1972. There, I said it!

WFB engaged the world on all fronts including television, periodicals, a syndicated newspaper column, books – more than fifty, both fiction and non-fiction, and speaking engagements. This guy used to speak and debate on college campuses during the strikes and riots of the late 60’s and early 70’s, and he was not telling them what they wanted to hear!

All have acknowledged his wit, and sense of humor. When he ran for mayor of New York City in 1965, he slipped away in the middle of the campaign to participate in the annual Newport to Bermuda Regatta – a race about which he later said he had as much chance of winning as the mayoral one! When asked what he would do if he won, he replied, “Demand a recount.” In Saving the Queen, one of his novels, the protagonist is sent to England to find out who was passing secrets to the Soviets. He becomes well acquainted with a member of the Royal Family, and, after hearing his report, his handler reminds him that his mission was to penetrate the spy ring – not the Queen!

Not everyone was as enamored of WFB as Rush, Michael, and me. I had a radical feminist friend who, when speaking of Buckley, would change the first letter of his last name to create an obscenity. Ah, well.

WFB was brilliant, witty, adventurous, and most of all, he had class. He was born into wealth, but unlike the nouveau riche of today, his family was “old money” with all that that implies.

To me, and many of my kind, WFB will always be a mentor, role model, leader, example – in short, a great man.

While he did say some rather goofy things in the latter part of his career, he never quit, never retired, and never stopped living life. He died working at his desk in his study. His son Christopher said that he died “with his boots on, after a lifetime of riding pretty tall in the saddle.”

I never met WFB in life, and it will be unlikely that I will meet him after death, for surely he is in heaven.

Ron Paul keeps donation from white supremacist, aide says
By Brian Skoloff
Asscociated Press Writer
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 12.19.2007

“Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he’s wasted his money,” Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. “Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom.
“And that’s $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does,” Benton added.

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/216992.php

Comment: Good for Paul! Look, there are two situations in which one would return a campaign donation: 1, The candidate is for sale; 2, The candidate is a punk. In the first case, a candidate might return a donation from someone who’s agenda was in conflict with the candidate. This is an admission that, by accepting the money, the candidate signs-on to the donors agenda - in other words, he would be selling himself. In the second case, a candidate may return the a donation out of fear of bad press, or grumblings from his base, or other donors - this is a punk. If Paul received a donation from a commie, should he return it? If he received a donation form a Democrat, should he return it? Where does this end?

Bob Dole (punk) returned a large donation from the Log Cabin Club when he was running for president because an aide told him that it would upset the base. Ronald Reagan received a large donation from the same group when he ran for president, and got the same advice from an aide. Reagan explained to the aide that the donation meant that the Log Cabin Club was signing on to his plan, no the other way around, and instructed him to keep the money. Reagan and Paul “get it.”

The following is from the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM):

Court Strikes Down State Law Prohibiting Workplace Gun Policies

This decision “gives Oklahoma employers relief from the ‘Catch-22’ position of having to choose between violating state or federal law,” Julie Elgar, SHRM’s Georgia state legislative director and an attorney at Ford and Harrison LLP in Atlanta told SHRM Online in an Oct. 23 interview. It also gives employers in states with similar laws a weapon to challenge the laws, she said. And, in states in which the legislature has fought over but ultimately failed to pass such laws, employers have legal ammunition when the issue comes up again, as it is likely to do in Georgia. “It’s a strong weapon to have in your arsenal,” Elgar noted.

Comment: This is the sort of thing that makes my head explode. A business is private property. There used to be rights associated with private property. Were that still the case, the business owner would develop a policy appropriate for his business, implement it, and shazaam!, resolution! Instead, the business owner, who has the biggest stake in the outcome, must sit on the sideline while state legislatures and feral… sorry, federal courts duke it out. I suppose if one is to be a slave, it’s nice to have competing masters fight over you.

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!

I received, in my email, a letter from the Ward VI office that was sent out to those who, at one time or another, signed up for these distributions. Most of these letters disseminate information concerning roll-off services, West Nile virus, mosquitoes, etc. This particular letter was from Councilman Trasoff herself. It talks about the controversial fourteen-dollar garbage fee. Controversial, that is, only during her election cycle. It appears that she not only claims the office of former Councilman Ronstadt, but his words as well.

Here’s the letter in its entirety, and some comments:

Message from Councilmember Nina Trasoff

Reply to all Reply to allForward Forward Print Add Ward6 to Contacts list Delete this message Report phishing Show original Message text garbled?
Ward6 Ward6

Friends,
Let’s talk trash.
More to the point, let’s talk about that $12 Environmental Services
fee that was attached to your monthly water bill three years back.
During my campaign for City Council in 2005, I spoke out against the implementation of that fee – largely because of the way the previous City Council implemented it.

I could be wrong, but I think it was by vote.

· I took issue with how quickly the city putting a
$14-per-customer price tag on garbage collection and how steep the increase was from the existing $2 Brush & Bulky fee!

Tortured grammar aside… pardon me while I guess at the meaning here… The garbage fee was a new fee, not part of the brush and bulky fee, am I right? If the brush and bulky collections are three or four times a year, and trash collection is fifty-two time a year, fourteen dollars seems a bargain.

· It was sold to Tucsonans as a way to pay for more police
officers and firefighters and pave roads. The public deserved a
straightforward, transparent explanation, not a shell game.

If the explanation was a “shell game”, then why does she use the same explanation in this letter, “Let’s be honest. Trash collection never was free. Money from the general fund was used to cover garbage services at the expense of other programs, such as repairing residential streets and improving parks and park programming.”?

· It was short sighted and insensitive that the fee was
implemented without regard for those who could least afford this fee. The waiver system originally adopted was onerous and unreasonable, requiring residents to request a waiver – in person - every single month.

Oh Boo-Hoo! If Mrs. Trasoff is so sensitive, why do we not see new waiver programs for city water, sales tax, parking meters…

· Insult to injury was the fact that at the same time they
implemented the garbage fee, they delayed full implementation of
commercial impact fees by 7 years! Since taking office, I have helped lead the way to rectify these issues:

I’m sure that the original copy said “Adding insult to injury..”, the word “Adding” must have been lopped off in the transcription. Anyway, here’s what Jim Nintzel recently said in the Tucson Weekly:

Trasoff, who wanted commercial impact fees “as soon as legally possible” during her 2005 campaign, now says the Republicans’ old phase-in plan–which wouldn’t have had full fees being collected until 2011–just took too long. She believes that the delay for the new commercial impact fees strikes a reasonable balance.”

· We’ve implemented a fee waiver program that allows residents
to self-qualify once a year by mail rather than having to apply every
month.
· We’ve accelerated implementation of commercial impact fees so that development will pay its share of the cost of increased city
services prompted by growth.
· We’ve separated Environmental Services from the Water
Department and hired a nationally recognized Director of Environmental Services – Andrew Quigley – to put his expertise on important environmental issues to work and to answer the question: how much does garbage really cost?

Hint: Competitive contracting would give us a pretty good idea.

Shortly after I joined the City Council, I did make a motion to
instruct staff to explore the feasibility of repealing the garbage fee.
That effort was defeated 5-2, with only Karin Uhlich joining me in
support.

This was an excellent move politically. It provided cover from any fire coming from voters who may have felt, well, shall we say “misled” by her campaign rhetoric.

Let’s be honest. Trash collection never was free. Money from the
general fund was used to cover garbage services at the expense of other programs, such as repairing residential streets and improving parks and park programming.
And here’s the rub: the garbage fee is now three years old and the
city’s sustainability program, well underway, is dependent on
environmental services being self-sufficient as an enterprise fund.
Residential streets are being repaired, more police and firefighters are on the job, and Parks & Recreation facilities and programming are improved.
So where do we go from here? We’d pay a stiff price [$24-million/year from other services] were we to rescind the fee now — and most communities in Arizona do charge for trash collection – many with fees higher than ours!

That was her Fred Ronstadt impersonation. Not bad, I might add.

I feel good about what we have been able to accomplish: my primary concerns about fee waivers, joining Environmental Services with Water, and delaying commercial impact fees - these issues have all been resolved.
It’s time for us to move forward as a community, together. I’d
value any thoughts or perspectives you’d like to share on this – or
any other – issue.
Thank you for the honor of serving as your representative on the Tucson
City Council.
Nina

Councilmember Nina Trasoff, Ward VI
3202 East 1st Street
Tucson, Arizona 85716
520-791-4601 Office
520-791-3211 Fax