Arpaio Grande

According to a Los Angeles Times article (May 24), Maricopa County Arizona top cop, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, wants his legion of supporters to pay for his self-made legal financial woes.  According to that article, Arpaio’s May 21 email reportedly stated in part:

“In some instances I have to personally pay for attorneys to represent me in these cases," and, "I do not have the personal wealth or the wherewithal to keep up with the costly demands of paying for attorneys to defend me.”
Boo hoo.

In this writer’s estimation, this cruel, egotistical, misogynistic outlaw made his own bed many times over and now should be forced to lie in it with all of the insects it no doubt attracts.

Arpaio was born in 1932 in Springfield, Massachusetts to Italian immigrants (ironically).  If Wikipedia.com is to be believed, his mother died in childbirth (she would have died from shame and embarrassment otherwise) and he was raised by his father, a grocery store owner.  He reportedly worked with his father until he joined the U.S. Army at the age of 18.  After his discharge in 1954, he became a civilian police officer.  Around 1957, Arpaio began working as a DEA agent and remained with the agency for 25 years.  In 1992, he ran for and successfully won the Sheriff’s seat in Maricopa County.  Since his inauguration in 1993, he has been a tenacious and incredibly vile fixture in Arizona’s political landscape.

Arpaio’s tenure has been marked by archaic, cruel, and bizarre governance.  In 1995, he re-instituted chain gangs.  While these chain gangs are voluntary for women and juveniles, it is not clear that they were voluntary for male inmates.  Given the life-threatening summer heat in Arizona, one should immediately wonder if he is trying to kill his wards.  Certainly, if his Tent City is any illustration, he is decidedly dismissive of the effects of exposure to heat that can soar over 110 degrees.  The temperature within the interiors of the tents is akin to the interior of locked vehicles where it would be illegal to leave a dog, let alone a person.

In November of 2008, Slate Magazine reported Arpaio instituted a plan to force all prisoners to wear pink underwear and fed them rations of “fortified bread and water.”  In the same year (and again in 2010), federal court judge Neil V. Wake ruled that conditions in Maricopa jails were unconstitutional.  The problems listed included the use of molding food, excessive heat, severe overcrowding, denial of medical and mental health services, and failure to allow prisoners access to toilets, toilet paper, and soap.  While Arpaio justified his practices by saying that jail was supposed to punish criminals, most people incarcerated in Maricopa County’s jails are not convicted felons, but are awaiting trial.  Let me state unequivocally – nothing justifies cruelty and these procedures harken to Third World despots.

The list of systematic, documented cruelties against incarcerated persons is so lengthy and sick-minded it is maddening.  It is nearly as long as the list of public servants, officials and journalists that he has legally attacked simply because they opposed him politically or publicly in some way.  Between 2008 and 2010, Arpaio enlisted the aid of former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas in calling for numerous public corruption investigations that were excessively costly to the public.  Eleven people including judges, and county supervisors were accused of corruption.  All of these individuals were exonerated of corruption charges and the county was forced to settle for over $45 million, a cost that did not include civil staff time.  The cases were such an egregious exploitation of power, that Thomas was disbarred by the findings of a panel of the Arizona Supreme Court.  Somehow, the Sheriff held on and was re-elected.

If Arpaio was actually a good top cop who was overseeing justice on some other level, this writer could understand why he still remains in office, but he is not.  Between 2004 and 2007, more than 400 sex crimes reported to the Sheriff’s office were inadequately investigated, or not investigated at all.  Over 30 of these cases involved child molestations.  One case involved a mentally disabled 13-year-old named Sabrina Morrison who was repeatedly raped and ultimately impregnated by her uncle.  The case was botched by investigators even though clear evidence of rape was gleaned in a rape kit.  The victim was then victimized by her family; but, after four years of incompetence, her perpetrator, Patrick Morrison, ultimately was sentenced to 24 years behind bars in 2012.  She is now reportedly suing Arpaio and Maricopa County for $30 million.

The county’s arrest rate also inclines one to believe that people are frequently taken into custody under false pretense.  According to an ABC news report in December 2010, at least 75% of criminal cases in Maricopa County were cleared by “exception” rather than arrest.  In 2008, the Goldwater Institute found the number of exceptions was closer to 82%.  After their original report, Nightline reportedly contacted Maricopa County again and learned that the actual number of crimes cleared by arrest was a dismal 944 out of 7,346 crimes, or 15%.  This is no surprise.

Famously, Arpaio is best known for racial profiling and pursuing all Hispanics as illegal immigrants.  “Unconstitutional policing” led to a class action lawsuit in 2007 and the May 10, 2012 Department of Justice filing of United States v. Maricopa County, et al.  In other communities around the United States the pattern of discriminatory policing usually has been perpetrated against African American citizens.  In Phoenix and surrounding communities, the people targeted are Latino.  This is another one of those powder kegs that is bound to ignite when enough Latino lives are disrupted, abused or taken by biased and lawless members of the Sheriff’s Department while their equally lawless and biased superior scoffs, waves a dismissive hand, and looks the other way.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s legal problems now stem from his defiant refusal to act upon the rulings against him and his ruthless tactics.  Clearly he has frightened everyone who can unseat him so badly that there is no concerted political effort worthy of such a feat.  At the age of 83, it is time for him to step down for no other reason than to relieve the good citizens of Arizona from the on-going and predictable burden of his parasitic presence.  One could hope that we could excuse his insanity as one commonly associated with old-age; but, alas, it appears to be a pattern that must be eradicated by a fearless and forthright electorate.

The Least Patriotic Act

It is a rare day when I can say the words: “I agreed with Rand Paul.”  The gentleman from Kentucky filibustered for 10 hours on the Senate floor Wednesday against the overreach given to the NSA (and many other governmental agencies) by the Bush-era Patriot Act.  While it was probably a political ploy designed to raise his stature in the polls and differentiate himself from rival Republican presidential hopefuls, for once he was making sense.

When this group of laws was enacted in October of 2001, I was absolutely outraged.  This knee-jerk legislation was one of the purest examples of the Hegelian Principle I had ever seen.  Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was a 19^th century philosopher who presented an evil three-step plan that allowed regal or elected leaders to gain more control over their constituents by creating hysteria.  Step 1: Create a problem or conflict and build it up out of proportion.  Step 2: Build opposition to the problem by using the media on a daily basis until people are clamoring for a remedy.  Step 3: Offer the public a solution in the form of a new law that they never would have supported before.

The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 was such a law.  Most people are not fully aware of what the USA PATRIOT acronym means.  The name stands for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism".  The law is comprised of 10 Titles which changed several previous laws including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986, the Bank Secrecy Act, and the Immigration and Nationality Act.  The portion of the law which typically is the target of most public derision is Title II which allows various agencies to use “Enhanced Surveillance Procedures” to snoop into the wire, oral and electronic communications of virtually anyone in the name of “public safety.”

Our government used a terrible day in our history to play on the emotions of our nation.  Terror came to our shores and America did what it has always done when a Bush was controlling the White House: We started a war.  Yes, we would start a war on terror and implement all sorts of cloak and dagger programs to find those bad people who were living among us while plotting our collective demise.  But after implementing an invasive law, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that cost billions of dollars, thousands of American lives, and tens of thousands of civilian casualties are we any closer to realizing victory against terrorism?

Clearly, I am not privy to confidential governmental operations.  Some of this sneaking and peeking may actually have helped the FBI identify money laundering operations, fraud, or criminal plots.  But, for the average person, how often can we point to the Patriot Act and say that it resulted in preventing lone wolf attackers like the Boston Marathon bombers from doing their worst?  So often we hear about people like Ryan Giroux, a man who killed one and injured five others on March 18 in Mesa, Arizona when he went on a shooting spree.  He reportedly was well known to police and had a criminal history that included murder.  If that sort of behavior isn’t terrifying I don’t know what is; and, yet, how did the Patriot Act prevent it?

Our civil rights have been deeply infringed, but the average citizen remains blissfully unaware of the level to which we have been laid bare.  There is no privacy.  Our personal information isn’t safe from common thieves or from common bureaucrats.  Congress has the opportunity to rein in these surveillance programs, but likely will do very little of any significance. .“Are you really willing to give up your liberty for security?” Senator Paul asked his colleagues.  Unfortunately, maintaining the status quo will likely be the undebated Congressional answer to that question.

Cruz Control

Ladies and gentlemen, some of you are going to be downright annoyed with me after reading this post; but, so be it.  As a political addict, you can imagine how intriguing the presidential candidates’ announcements are.  Certainly Marco Rubio’s doctrine rang with the clarion sound of rattling sabers.  Inane, inaccurate, and trite as it was it didn’t feel half as dangerous as Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s presidential announcement.

Cruz is not a stupid man.  He attended private schools as a child and began studying economics when he was just 13 years old.  Cruz earned his undergraduate degree from Princeton and went on to study law at Harvard.  Is he a genius?  Possibly.  I can respect a person with a strong mind.  I am an agnostic, but I also can accept people with strong religious beliefs.  But when the smart person with the strong beliefs is a first-term Senator who decides to make his Christian religion the central message of his political campaign – and ostensibly his political platform – well, now I have a problem.

Senator Cruz decided to make his announcement at the late Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.  Some of you may not remember Mr. Falwell.  He was rabidly opposed to homosexuals, and was famous for supporting segregation in schools in the 1970’s.  Racism was the only reason he founded the Moral Majority in 1975.  Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Falwell appeared on his pal Pat Robertson’s The 700 Club program and controversially stated: "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"  He later was forced to apologize for that hateful sewage.  Thank goodness his vitriolic voice was silenced in 2007.  Rest in pieces.

Now, let’s fast forward to Ted Cruz on March 23, 2015.  Liberty University provided Cruz with a ready-made audience on the Monday morning when he appeared with his charming. pink-clad wife and daughters.  The students of Liberty University are required to attend “church” in this forum on Monday mornings.  All applauded and obediently appreciated their guest speaker.  No one should have been surprised that Cruz invoked the name of God nine times and the name of Jesus Christ three times in a speech that called upon “courageous conservatives” to help him “stand for (religious) liberty.”  He did his level best to throw meat to the hungry Tea Party tigers.

However, Liberty University also is symbolic to Cruz for another reason.  The university filed a lawsuit within hours after the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) in 2010, a law that Cruz has stridently (and futilely) opposed since he took office in 2012.  Most presidential candidates declare their intentions in their home states.  Cruz is fairly popular in his home state of Texas.  Why, then did he choose Virginia?  I suspect he needed to create a bit of political theater.  Feeding the children of the Moral Majority also fed the Tea Party; and, Cruz served up God and family, sobriety, and Patrick Henry.

The games have begun.  I can’t wait to hear what Jeb Bush has to say when he finally stops sucking from the nipple of his Super PAC and makes his candidacy official.

The Wizard of Odds

On November 5, 2014, no one could have been more surprised than your humble host to learn that Kansas Governor Sam Brownback (R) and all of the Republican members of his legislature were re-elected.  As ballotpedia.org noted: “there was no change to the majority control of the Kansas House of Representatives. The Republican Party increased their number of seats held from 93 to 98. The Democratic Party lost five seats, dropping from 32 to 27 following the election.”

Off-year elections often are met with apathy and yield conservative results.  In my mind, however, given the current state of financial affairs in the great state of Kansas, that was surprising to me.  Who in the world would support the same cast of lunatics who created ridiculous tax cuts that resulted in cuts to EVERYTHING including schools, state office hours, primary and secondary jobs, government staff pension plans and public services?

Apparently, Kansans's primary source of news and information is almost singularly generated by Fox News and its ultra-conservative culture of unreasonable insanity.

If you are not familiar with the economic results of the work of the Governor and his minions since 2009, let me enlighten you, gentle reader.  The State of Kansas decided to adopt the Laffer Curve.  (I wish I could make that name up, but it always makes me smirk.)  This is heady economic stuff so, stick with me.  Economists love models and Arthur Laffer decided that he could generate a model in which a government(s) could reduce tax revenue and, as a corollary, generate increased revenue.  Isn't that confusing?  How?  The whole idea is that if you put money back into peoples’ hands they will support the economy rather than using the money for personal benefit.

Right.  Sure.  Humans always think of helping others.  There is no evidence that the Laffer Curve ever worked.  Effectively, it is laughable.

But what happened in Kansas?  I believe it was (a field of poppies) or an economically predictable response that led merchants in the state-split city of Kansas City, Missouri to run across the border to generate new businesses so that they could reduce their state tax burdens.  The new rules created competition.  And Hallelujah! Investors.com heralded the exciting news that “Tax Cuts Work!”  There was job creation! (Who is surprised?)  Toot that horn.  (Please, don't get me wrong. I'm happy for the 9,800 people who are now gainfully employed.  Good for them.)

Forbes followed up the next day on the gush of affection for statistical job creation with a report (including awesome charts and graphs) of their own.  Down in the end of that article, (clearly the part that no one reads) is the truth:

“To be certain, there is still a lot of work to be done by state officials, the legislature, and the governor in order to correct a projected $600 million shortfall. According to the Associated Press report, the legislature is considering changes related to public pensions (a projected $9.8 billion gap), increasing fees charged by top managed health care companies from 1 percent to 5 percent (which could bring in an additional $80 million annually), and improving management of mental health drugs for Medicaid recipients, which Brownback believes could save the state more than $8 million. Also being considered is a variety of tax increases.”

So, essentially, all of that happy talk about job creation is misdirection.  There is a $600 million gap and the Kansas kids want to close it by going after retirees and the mentally ill while increasing the cost of health care for everyone. Excrement is always warm when it is fresh and always smells just as sweetly.

As Shakespeare said: “There’s the rub.” Or, as Sting and the Dire Straits sang in their 1985 music video there will be:  “Money for nothing’…”

Go get 'em, Governor Brownback. The next thing he will do is axe elementary school programs... Oh, wait.  He already did.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat

CNN mouthpiece Wolf Blitzer looked at the urban unrest in Baltimore this week and claimed that it was “hard to believe” that he was seeing looting in the streets of America so long after the civil rights movement of the 1960’s.  

Really, Wolf?

As if he had never seen Ferguson last year, or Atlanta, Los Angeles, St. Petersburg, Miami, Detroit, or the Watts riots like all of the rest of the people of his age did.  Urban unrest occurs as frequently as geographically related economic and employment downturns because they walk hand-in-hand.  When people are starving and deprived of things that they need (Maslov’s Hierarchy of Needs) and want for a significant period of time, they will react to the situation.  And, if the situation provides a powerless and voiceless human with an opportunity to take what she thinks she needs (like diapers and baby formula), she will boost that stuff in a second.

I do not condone looting, stealing or damaging property. This is lawless. This is a crime. This is a time at which families should ask the perpetrators “how did you get that?”  Looting is not an issue-related protest.  It is a different kind of protest.

There are only a few kinds of protest.  There is a peaceful, issue-specific, active protest like marching and chanting.  There is a peaceful, inactive protest like a sit-in or a die-in.  Then, there is an active, violent protest that has nothing to do with any specific situation that speaks volumes about a localized powder keg that was ignited by the factors that created it.  Welcome to the riot.

Writer Saul Williams said:  “Legislation won't necessarily start a riot. But the right song can make someone pick up a chair.”

In Baltimore, the song included lyrics about Freddie Gray, “nickel rides,” 35 percent African American male unemployment ,high, high poverty rates, and systemic police brutality against anyone who isn't White.  One cannot legislate common sense, and justice seldom enters into the mixing of the legislative sausage.

So, today, news agencies are aiding in the finger-pointing in the great state of Maryland.  The (Black) mayor of Baltimore, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake (D), allegedly was “late” in identifying a problem. (Not).  The (White) governor of Maryland, Lawrence Joseph "Larry" Hogan, Jr. (R) , said that he signed an executive order “immediately” to involve National Guards as soon as she requested additional aid in her city.  Later, Governor Hogan made it seem as if a riot should have been foreseeable when all of the previous reactions to police brutality were peaceful.

White on Black.  Republican against Democrat.  White on Black.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Black lives matter.

All lives matter.

Stop it.

Repackaging the Message

As a result of the 2010 census, many congressional districts have been redrawn.  This often is an event that is met with a certain amount of antipathy by voters and seated members of congress.  For voters who suddenly find themselves in a new district represented by a person they neither know nor like, the solution seems apparent: Vote for someone familiar who shares their sentiments at the next election.
For the politician, the problem is more complicated.  In the state of Washington there are at least two congresspeople from different parties who share a common trait and problem.  Both are moderate and both were redistricted. While they carry different political banners, they are very ideologically similar and often vote in a way that does not toe their party line.  Such political figures never fail to gain my admiration because they seem to have convictions.  Now, I feel sorry for both of them because they will be facing elections in their new district.
These principled people share the common need to quickly learn their new constituencies and rebrand themselves to maximize their appeals. Politics is, essentially, a marketing project.  So, it becomes apparent that if you are going to sell a product called Congressman Jones, his workers need to understand the market and how to reach it.  If it were me, marketing Congressman Jones, I would look very closely at the census results. The new district has new cities and suburbs. What is the median age? Do people go to polls or vote by mail? Do people go to churches, mosques, synagogues, or sports bars? What is the average income? What is the poverty rate? How do the economic trends vary in different neighborhoods? What is the divorce rate? How many schools are there? What is the biggest employer? What is the crime rate? How many people speak a foreign language as the primary language in their home? These are the kinds of questions that should be asked city by city.  Based on the answers to these questions, campaign handlers get a feel for the advertising that might work best in different areas.  Clearly, one message does not fit all cities and it is good to know this because it is a winning idea to design more than one advertising product.
But, if Congressman Jones really wants to get a feel for the new constituents a more humanistic approach is needed.  He needs to pick up the local newspapers and read the letters to the editors everyday for a month. After 30 days of that, hang out quietly at the local Walmart or grocery.  Dress down, put on a baseball hat and glasses, and silently walk the aisles. Look at the faces of children.  Look at the weathered hands of the working men and the threadbare coats of young mothers.  Look at the food in the carts. Look at the movies and music and magazines that people buy. Really look into the eyes of the senior citizen who is subsisting on 89-cent bread so that she can buy her prescription, too. These are the real constituents.  Eventually, we all show up to buy something to eat.
Indeed, the voters appear as clean and factual statistics; but voters also are real people who sometimes appear to be at their very worst in public. So, Congressman Jones (and you too, Congressmen Black, White, Brown, and Green), when you recraft your message, please remember... The best advertising you could ever do would demonstrate that you are compassionately aware of the fact that we are all as human as you are and that we all just want to eat and go home to people who love us at the end of the day.  Find a way to help us with that and you will win anywhere you stand.

Out to Pasture

The state of Washington is a land of extremes and double-speak.  In the rain shadow (actually a "sunny place") of the Cascade mountain range, the east side of the state spreads out like a sparsely populated patchwork quilt of farms, vineyards, orchards, and arid plains. The west side of the Cascades was best categorized by a local radio station's "give us a slogan" winner which said: "Living in Seattle is like being married to a beautiful woman who is always sick." The west's lush greenery (visible in sunlight for an average of 93 minutes per year) is the natural by-product of relentless drizzle and environmental protection born of man's inability to construct roads and houses on land that is as wet and cold as a sponge left in yesterday's dishwater.
Just about half of the state's population lives in three counties that rim the Puget Sound and they are unequivocally ruled by the Democratic Party. Though the east side of the state has a much greater land mass and a more right-leaning philosophy, the west side sends their left-leaning picks to the Senate each election cycle. One of the winners of the lifelong term award (since 1992) is Senator Patty Murray. In keeping with the passive-aggressive nature of western Washington, Murray has worked tirelessly throughout her career to not offend most people.  She has taken just enough of a stand on social and liberal issues to maintain her re-election coffers. At the same time, (to her credit) she championed the health care causes of veterans and made sure those "itchy fingers" of the far right stayed closer to the metaphorical safety and not the trigger. Over the years, Murray's longevity and party loyalty has won her prominence in the other Washington; and, in August 2011 she was tapped to co-chair the debt reduction super committee. This symbolic 12-member panel was created after the debt-ceiling showdown threatened to shut down the federal government. The committee was charged with the unenviable task of creating $1.5 trillion deficit reduction plan before automatic cuts took effect. Whether the answer to the problem was solved by generating cuts, taxes, or both, the panel was to formulate a strategy that the broader government could implement. Upon the date of deadline, Murray's super committee produced a whopping...
Nothing. Zilch. Zero. Not a thing except a statement of blame aimed at the other party, rich Americans, and the George Bush tax cuts.  Murray reportedly told CNN's "State of the Union":
"There is one sticking divide, and that is the issue of what I call shared sacrifice, where everybody contributes in a very challenging time for our country... That's the Bush tax cuts. In making sure that any kind of package includes everybody coming to the table and the wealthiest of Americans, those who earn over a million dollars every year, have to share, too. And that line in the sand, we haven't seen any Republicans willing to cross yet."
So, let's dissect this statement.  (sic) "We are politicians and it is our job to talk about problems and come up with collective decisions based on our superior ability to negotiate and reason. However, after several months, we failed to do our job because we drew an imaginary line and demanded that the folks on the other side of this discussion jump over it." Way to negotiate, Team Nada.
As long as everyone in the nation's capital are more interested in protecting their moss-covered posteriors than in working for the collective good, nothing will get done. Regardless of party affiliation, our elected officials seem to be playing at work. Perhaps this can be taken in an economic context.  After all, we are still suffering in the throws of the Great Recession.  Even though the unemployment rate reportedly decreased in December 2011, over eight percent of the workforce is temporarily sidelined while a quiet army of people equaling approximately ten percent of the potential workforce either took early retirement, went to school, or just quit looking for a job. Who in the world would want to be thrust out of office and into such a daunting job market? Obviously a person who knows no life outside of granite columns would fare poorly in an economic climate of low-wage, low-skilled jobs that require real people to do real work. Without re-election, they would have to join the early retirement crowd.
Many Americans would like to see their current stock of leaders in retirement.  By all appearances, many politicians already have given up working and have opted for weeks of restfully laying about like obstructive road humps. This practice is periodically punctuated by moments of excited finger-pointing and squeals of "your fault!" which can hardly be defined as "work."
It is 2012.  A new election cycle looms large on the horizon. I think it is time for voters to overturn that dusty, old box that we call Congress and dislodge its useless cargo.