Fun old clip...watch for a young Karl Rove

For a change of pace, here's a movie review...or four

I saw four movies this past weekend. That must be some sort of record for me. Two were old, while two were made in the past couple years. On Friday night, in a cabin in Payson with friends from college, we watched the original Sabrina, from 1954, starring Audrey Hepburn, Humphrey Bogart, and William Holden. On Sunday afternoon, at the Phoenix Art Museum, I saw 1937's Shall We Dance with Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. While I like many classic films, I am not one who believes all old movies were great. But I thoroughly enjoyed both, and found myself laughing out loud throughout Shall We Dance. I was amazed by the flamboyant gay-ish characters in Shall We Dance, which made it even funnier after 70 years and many changes in the American lexicon when one of the characters said he would soon be returning to his regular "gay life." The sexual innuendo was as present in 1937 as it is in today's films, with the Astaire and Rogers' characters trying to downplay rumors of an affair between the two. What was different was the subtlety with which it was delivered - or implied. Perhaps more than decency, our society has lost its sense of subtlety. And yes, for those who were wondering, the Phoenix Art Museum frequently shows movies at 2 p.m. on Sundays. From the art deco ship in Shall We Dance, I presume that films are chosen for their artistic displays.

Among the newer films I watched this weekend, the first was Mike Judge's Idiocracy. While I am a fan of both Beavis and Butt-head and King of the Hill, I've always found Judge's style better suited for the small screen. In fact, this film was perhaps the stupidest film I have ever seen. The premise behind the film is that stupid people breed more than smart people, and that eventually the world will be nothing but ignoramuses (or is it ignorami?). After seeing two smart, funny, feel-good films from an earlier era, Judge's film proved its own point through its sheer stupidity.

The final film I watched this weekend was Dreamgirls, which is a thinly veiled fictional story based largely on the life of real Motown superstars. The music and cast were great, although the story line was a bit predictable. I bet this one was great on stage, though.

I tried to see a fifth film tonight, Jesus: The Lost Years. Unfortunately, it was a sold out special engagement, and tickets were only available through the marketing company that primarily sells tickets through churches. When I called the company sponsoring the special showing, I heard a recording telling me to hold for the next operator, after which I was soon hung up on. The irony of this experience, given some of my past experiences being shunned by "Christianity," is the topic for another blog. If anyone gets the chance to see this movie, please let me know how it is. The New Testament of the Christian Bible says little about Jesus's youth, especially these years in which he was in Egypt. And I am the type of Christian who believes that God speaks to us through more than just ancient scriptures deemed worthy of being in the Bible. In fact, like the United Church of Christ, I believe God Is Still Speaking. And there you have it: movies, God, and social commentary. What more could a blog post have?

Follow up on Sheriff Joe

For those of you who read the previous story on my blog, it ran on A1 of today's Arizona Republic, above the fold. I beat the state's largest newspaper by just half a day. Regardless of who broke the story, I'm glad it got some attention.

The employee whose e-mail I posted is Ramon Delgadillo, a translator for the county court system. And to answer the questions I posed in the blog, Sheriff Joe has said that nobody so far has been caught and/or deported for trying to visit a county jail (the screening did just start, but if nobody is caught, then why are we doing this? And more importantly, do immigrants really come to America, legally or illegally, so they can visit people in jail?). Moreover, as I expected, if you claim to be a natural born citizen, you do not have to show any proof of this claim to be admited to visit the jail. If you claim to be a naturalized citizen, however, you must document it with your ID number, when you became naturalized, etc. Who knows what permanent (legal) resident aliens have to show. My question is why not make everybody show proof that they are here legally to enter a jail? Otherwise, how is the law enforced without racial profiling, by people who likely can't tell an Apache from an Iraqi? I have met people who speak flawless American English who are in our country illegally. And I know people who were born and raised in this country, but for whom English is a second language. So how do we know when to take people's word for what box they check if we don't check everyone's birth certificate or naturalization papers? Wouldn't this program work much more effectively if we did, or is this program not as much about catching illegal immigrants as it is about catching headlines, Sheriff?

Sheriff Joe discriminating...against the county's own employees

As you may have heard, Sheriff Joe Arpaio is now requiring people to prove their citizenship or legal residency in order to visit our county jails. This is to keep illegal immigrants from visiting their family in jail, as if that is somehow going to reduce illegal immigration. He apparently sees it as another way of catching them. Good luck on that Sheriff. I want to hear the report of who gets caught and deported for visiting a jail. But in the mean time, here is an e-mail I received from a 25 year employee of the court (and U.S. citizen) who was prevented from entering a county jail to do his job because he was not carrying the proper identification. As a former civil rights investigator for the Arizona Attorney General's office, my question is whether the Sheriff is requiring the same documentation (a birth certificate) for those who check "naturalized citizen" on the form, or if they just take your word for it if you look and talk white...I mean right. If the documentation requirement is not the same between natural born and naturalized citizens, the Sheriff could be breaking the law, costing us taxpayers still more money with another lawsuit against our government that could have been prevented. And since I never have received press releases from SJ, and have no desire to, I won't be taking him to court as the West Valley View did to have access to press releases that are public records.

Here is the e-mail I received from a county court employee:

Yesterday, August 15, 2007, I went to the Lower Buckeye Jail with Alicia Dominguez, Public Defender. When we were checking in we were required to fill out a new form. This form has boxes to indicate your citizenship status, one box if you are a U.S. Citizen or National by birth in the United States, another if you are a Naturalized Citizen not born in the United States,” it also asks which court, city and state issued the certificate of Naturalization and requests the number of the Certificate, the date it was issued as well as your passport number and the date of issue. I marked the box for Naturalized Citizen. We turned them in at the window along with our county IDs. After a phone call to her supervisor, the person at the window informed me I had to include all the rest of the information. I said I did not have it with me, and was denied entrance to the facility to do my job.

I have worked for the Courts for over twenty five years; I have been to the jails thousands of times and I had presented my county I.D. There is no governmental requirement to carry the information that was requested. There is no requirement to apply for a passport as a citizen, naturalized or not. Furthermore, there was no provocation for discrimination. Whether our sheriff has the right to require that information from the general visiting public is for someone else to decide; but, through no fault of my own, I now find myself in a hostile work environment. I am being treated differently than my co-workers who are not naturalized even though we share our citizenship.

I came to this country as an immigrant over 34 years ago. I became a citizen, I have a family, I vote, and pay taxes only to be treated like a second class citizen. I am not one to write frivolous letters but I am outraged, and everyone who cherishes the rights of citizenship should be outraged.

I have withheld the name of the employee for privacy reasons. However, if you are a member of the media (mainstream or otherwise) wishing to contact this person for an article, please e-mail me and I will put you in touch with him.

Totally biased, but funny, video

Dick Cheney was right about Iraq in 1994

Watch Dick Cheney explain in 1994 why it was the right decision NOT to invade Baghdad after the 1991 Gulf War.

Where do the candidates for President stand on taxes?

Wondering where the presidential candidates stand on taxes and tax fairness? Check out this summary from the Citizens for Tax Justice.

Will Bush and Congress expand health insurance for children?

A decade ago, in the wake of the unsuccessful Clinton health care reform,, a Republican Congress did agree with President Clinton that we should at least provide health insurance to more children in low-income families. Thus was created SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Program. In Arizona, this is administered by AHCCCS and called KidsCare. It allows children in families making up to about $41,000 a year for a family of four to get affordable health insurance. The monthly premiums are never more than $35, and may be less depending on income and the number of children.

On September 30, federal funding for this program ends. The U.S. House and Senate have passed separate bills to reauthorize this program, and President Bush has also called for the program to be reauthorized. So it's a done deal, right? Not exactly. Congressional Democrats want to expand the program to allow families making a little bit more money to buy into SCHIP and to make sure those already eligible know about it, while President Bush actually wants to kick off some of the families who are currently served before he'll let the program continue.

This is another one of those funny areas where Republicans say they don't want to cut a program, but merely reduce the amount of the increase in the program. President Bush, after all, wants $5 billion more over the next five years than the program currently spends. That's an increase, right? Well, not exactly, and no, this isn't Washington double speak. As you all know, health care costs are rising faster than just about everything else out there (except other life necessities like food and energy). Given the increases in health care costs, and the rising number of people who have to turn to public health insurance because their employers no longer cover them, the small increase in funding that President Bush offers does not even cover rising costs for those already on the program. I've seen this as well with child care funding to help low income people transition off of welfare and into work. We know that families with children coming off welfare are 82% more likely to still be employed after two years if they have help paying for their child care. Yet one of President Bush's proposals to "reduce the increase" in child care funding would mean that 300,000 fewer families would be served after five years...a miniscule increase in money, but a big drop in the number of people served. So is it part of an "ownership society," as the President claims, or a "you're-on-your-own-ship society?"

Who pays more taxes for the right to pollute the air: smokers or motorists?

From the "duh" files, news came this week that cigarette sales are down since Arizona voters hiked cigarette taxes 82 cents a pack last fall. Some question whether we have become too dependent on cigarette taxes. In other words, we've now taxed cigarettes so much, that too few people are smoking to generate the tax revenue we expected from them.

Do you think we'll ever get into this situation with gasoline taxes, the point of diminishing returns? Today's Arizona Republic mentioned that asphalt costs have shot up 75% in the past four years, and cement costs have risen 30%, causing some previously planned road projects to be cancelled or postponed. Meanwhile, our state's gasoline tax of 18 cents per gallon, which is used to fund highways, has not been raised, even to keep up with inflation, in 17 years. So why not raise the gasoline tax a nickel or dime a gallon? Do we think the same thing would happen that we're seeing with cigarette taxes...that people would stop driving if we raised gasoline taxes? If so, then we'd raise more money for new highways while reducing the number of drivers using them, and that would solve our congestion problems right quick. Right now, only 10 states have lower gasoline taxes than Arizona, and even if we raised gasoline taxes a dime a gallon to 28 cents, we'd still be well below Washington state's 34 cents per gallon. But alas, it will never happen, because then all those folks in Bylthe, CA, would stop crossing the river to Quartzite to fill their tanks, and Arizona will never give up its tax on Californians! Maybe if there are any smokers left in Arizona, we can ask them to build us more highways?

So what has the Democratic Congress done so far?

I keep getting this question from my friends, the ones who are not too involved in the political process, but who at least voted last year and hoped the Democrats could change things in Congress and our nation. You know, the group that has been responsible for the plunging approval ratings of Congress. I have been following the happenings in Congress, but had to do some research as my memory is hazy on specific bills. I will tell you that when you Google "Democratic Congress accomplishments," you get more poll results and Democratic and Republican propoganda than actual reporting from relatively unbiased news outlets (I even went to Google News). You'd think some news source might do a story on this whole subject, with an easy to read graphic, a scorecard to show whether Congress is doing what they said they would. But after doing almost two hours of research and fact checking for this post, I can see how reporters don't get the time to do real reporting in this age of 24 hour "news".

I, of course, am not an unbiased news source, but I have compiled what I have found that Congress has done this year. I have to agree with the majority of the American people that Congress should have accomplished more, but given the new people who have recently become involved in the political process, motivated by disdain of the Bush Administration, many of these folks will be inpatient, and not have the intimate knowledge of just how slow our political process works. So for you inpatient ones, I am not justifying a lack of action, but you should know you're not the first generation in history to be frustrated with our leaders. If you thought Bush, Cheney, and Gonzalez would be impeached by now and our soldiers would be happily back home kissing their brides, I am sorry you had such high expectations with a short timeline. But here are some modest yet important accomplishments from our Congress this year:

1. Ethics reform. Before leaving town for the traditional August recess (or "district work period" as Congress always calls it), they did pass what Common Cause calls the most far-reaching ethics and lobby reform since Watergate. So while there is impatience and disappointment in Congress from many on the left, not everyone on the left feels that way. Also touting the ethics reform is Public Citizen, founded by Ralph Nader. Having worked on the Hill, I think Washington will always be Washington, and we've had complaints about elected officials' ethics since Washington himself. That won't change. But the bill does expand lobbyist disclosure of megacontributions from different sources that lobbyists bundle together, requires disclosure of who in Congress has inserted specific earmarks into appropriation bills, bans access of Senators-turned-lobbyists to the Senate gym, increases the amount of time elected and other officials must wait after leaving their job before they can lobby, and denies Senators and Representatives their pension if convicted of a felony. The legislation has been sent to President Bush.

2. Raised the minimum wage. This is the accomplishment you've probably heard touted the most by Democrats. The minimum wage is going to $7.25/hr. from $5.15 over the course of three years. The minimum wage hadn't been raised in a decade, the longest period the minimum wage has ever gone without being increased since it was enacted during the Great Depression. The President signed this.

3. Voted to raise fuel economy standards for the first time in 30 years as part of a comprehensive energy bill. The House and Senate have passed different versions of energy bills, and the differences must still be worked out through a conference committee. The Senate voted to raise Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which if passed into law, would be the first time Congress has increased CAFE standards since the 1970's. Cars would go from 27.5 mpg currently to 35 mpg over time. The energy bill in the House requires all investor-owned utilities to produce 15% of their energy from renewable sources by 2020 (wind, solar, etc.). The bills also repeal some of the tax favors that went to big energy interests in 2005.

4. Restored fiscal responsibility by bringing back Pay-As-You-Go. Congress used to have rules called Pay-As-You-Go, or PAYGO, meaning that any tax cut or spending increase had to be paid for somewhere else in the budget. The Republican Congress allowed this to expire. The Democrats have brought it back. And all the new spending initiatives the Democrats have proposed are paid for either through cuts in other places or closing tax loopholes. Since our government owes $9 trillion (the national debt), or about $30,000 for each man, woman, and child in the U.S., I consider this change to be one of the most important things the new Congress has done.

5. Increased student financial aid. Pell Grants have been stuck at the same level the past six years, in spite of skyrocketing tuition at most universities. The House and Senate have passed the Higher Education Access Act, that would not only increase Pell Grants, but provides one of the biggest increases in student financial aid since the GI Bill. The House and Senate are working out their differences in a conference committee, so this has not been sent to the President for his signature yet. It may face a veto since it pays for this by cutting payments to college loan lenders.

6. Implemented the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. This bill has been sent to the President.

7. Expanded health insurance for uninsured children. The House and Senate have passed differing bills to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which in Arizona is known as KidsCare. Since its creation, KidsCare has reduced the percentage of Arizona kids without health insurance from 25% to 15%.

8. Iraq and Immigration. These are the two areas where Congress has not accomplished even minor change, and these are two of the biggest issues in America. I will skip immigration and leave a final note on Iraq. Congress did send President Bush a bill with a timeline requiring U.S. troops to leave Iraq, but it was vetoed. Now the question is whether Congress will play political brinksmanship and say to Bush "we won't fund the war anymore unless we have a concrete plan for withdrawal." So far, that hasn't happened. When the American people will demand that of Congress, we shall see.

State's Dems Meet In Prescott; No Chairs Thrown

The drama was mild, though just enough to keep the quarterly meeting of Arizona's state Democratic Committee yesterday in Prescott interesting. The rumors of delegates charging the stage or walking out over the choice of the new state party chair did not come to fruition, and as soon as the vote was over, the four or so uniformed Prescott police officers left the building. Former ADP (Arizona Democratic Party) Chair David Waid took over last year from now-Congressman Harry Mitchell, then was re-elected Chair in January. By April, he reportedly confided in Don Bivens that he would be resigning just months after being elected to a full term, and asked Bivens to consider running to replace him as Chair. And so it was, but many delegates felt it wrong of Waid to give someone else a chance to organize a campaign for Chair before letting anybody else know he was resigning. These concerned delegates wore orange arm bands (although the Cindy Sheehan wing of the party mostly wore them as bandanas - looking fresh from Woodstock) and handed out orange papers stating their concerns. They nominated two other candidates who used their 5 minute "acceptance" speeches to say the party needed to operate in a more open manner, then decline the nomination. In the end, Don Bivens was the only nominee, and was declared the new Chair of the ADP. Nobody walked out, but in a peaceful way, concerned delegates made their concerns known. Thank God for democracy.

The other point of contention for many activists was seperating the actual state committee delegates, who had to show credentials to get on the floor, from others in attendance, including many leading party activists, who were relegated to the balcony. Many folks old enough to remember segregation, which we did have in Arizona, did not like the connotation.

The late, great AZ Congressman Mo Udall said that when Democrats form a firing squad, they form a circle. But the Democrats are still more united than the Republicans in Arizona. Their state party chair, Randy Pullen, has sent out e-mails blasting his party's own two Senators, caused the entire party staff to resign upon his election (which was opposed by all Republicans in AZ's congressional delegation), and has caused many donors to stop contributing. Meanwhile, since he took over as the GOP chair, Democrats have out-registered Republican new voters by a margin of 3-to-1 in Arizona (15,000 new Democratic voters since January, to 5,000 new Republican voters).

Post Script: The Democratic State Committee also approved a resolution calling for investigation and impeachment of President Bush, VP Cheney, and Attorney General Gonzalez. While many delegates (myself included) feel impeachment would be a waste of time at this point, taking away attention from presidential candidates and tying up Congress, this resolution passed easily. But the Democratic Congress should know those who put them there at least want them to take the necessary oversight of the Bush Administration that previous Congresses refused to do.

P.S.S. Thanks to all who told me yesterday that you read this blog. Now comment and take the poll!

Remembering a Part of Phoenix

Today as I picked up my buddy Frank Sacco to head to Prescott for the Democratic State Committee meeting, I passed by the old Christown Mall, later called Phoenix Spectrum Mall, and now Christown Spectrum Mall. There is a site for those who remember it in its glory days and want to stroll down memory lane, when it was the place to shop in Phoenix (and Arizona). It was Arizona's first indoor, air conditioned mall, stationed in the city's new, outlying suburbs when it opened in 1961. But in the early 1970's, a newer, "better" mall (Metrocenter) was opened a few miles up the road, in a newer, "nicer" neighborhood. Christown was no longer the place to shop. The neighborhood around it began to age and decline. Old higher end anchors pulled out, and were replaced by the likes of Walmart. The latest owners have decided the mall needs some TLC, and although it will never again be "the place to shop," at least they are trying to keep it from being a blight to the neighborhood. JC Penney's is now opened as a new anchor (they were an original anchor), Harkins Theatres has put in a new movie theater, and a SuperTarget is on its way. And it will be at the end of the new light rail route.

Growing up in Scottsdale and northeast Phoenix, I never much frequented Christown, but I have seen the similar pattern of decline throughout our Valley. One thing I love about Tucson is that you can set your watch by that town. Not much changes. The theaters where I saw movies in college in the 90's were listed in the Arizona Daily Star the day man landed on the moon in 1969 (oddly, I found a reprint of the Daily Star from that day in the National Air and Space Museum). Here in Maricopa County, however, all the old movie theaters I saw movies in as a kid are gone - the theaters in Thomas and Los Arcos Malls, the Kachina in downtown Scottsdale, and the original CineCapri. It's amazing how some communities cherish their history, while others join the throw away society that finds neighborhoods, employees, and old appliances to be dispensable. Why fix what is old when you can just start over with the new? Okay, it makes sense to discard old appliances, but why do we subsidize big businesses to create new, low paying jobs in the outskirts of our cities and create more sprawl, instead of using our tax dollars to reinvest in revitalizing our own existing communities? I just returned from vacation in San Francisco, and as expensive a place to live as it might be, I'd rather see Phoenix turn into San Francisco than Detroit.

The (Democratic) Presidential Candidates Talk LGBT Issues

Tonight was truly historic for the Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender (LGBT) community. The Human Rights Campaign and the Logo network just wrapped up a live forum (watch it!) in which all major presidential candidates were invited to talk to panelists (not debate) issues of concern to the LGBT community. Unfortunately, no Republican candidate agreed to appear. However, most of the Democratic candidates did. Some did better than others, some were more comfortable with the topic than others, but it happened. Sure there is argument over how fast things move for folks in the LGBT community. It's a struggle, first for legal rights, and in the longer term, for the hearts and minds of human beings. As a former civil rights investigator for the Arizona Attorney General's Office, I can tell you that the laws are in place to protect people from discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations. Okay, well, people are not protected on the basis of their sexual identity, but on race, national origin, sex, disability status, etc. That does not mean that everybody's hearts and minds are in the right place, even 40 years after the civil rights movement. Otherwise, I would not have had a job. I have seen people blatantly (and lots more far more subtly) discriminated against on the basis of their sex, race, or disability status. I saw far more people in that job calling in who had lost their jobs because of their sexual orientation. It happens. And under Arizona and federal law, there is nothing that we could do to stop it. So we need to change laws first. And simultaneously, we need to prepare for the longer struggle to change people's hearts and minds.

Now for my thoughts on the debate. Mind you, as a disclaimer, I am still an undecided voter, although I intend to vote in the AZ Democratic presidential primary. I did not see the beginning. I missed Senators Edwards and Obama, although I saw clips. It did not sound like Senator Edwards scored too many points, but perhaps held his own. Senator Obama, from the clips I saw, appeared to "get it." I then saw the complete interviews with Congressman Kucinich and Senator Gravel, both of whom were very supportive of the community, and talked about spreading love and all that sixties hippy stuff. Then I saw Bill Richardson, a candidate I have previously considered supporting, since he has one of the best resumes, and his record on LGBT issues tends to be pretty progressive, although I disagree with him on a host of other issues. Governor Richardson stubbed his toe tonight. No, perhaps he hit a brick wall. And he knew it. He fumbled around like a politician to try not to say the wrong thing, and offered as much support as he politically felt he could. But he uttered that homosexuality is a choice, which is not the way so many of us feel. I think of the candidates I saw fully, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton did the best. I have concerns about the possibility of 28 unbroken years of Presidents named Bush and Clinton. But I've been warming to her lately. I think she not only has the background to step into the job on day 1, but I think she's smart, in touch, and can hold her own in a debate. I've seen her evolve, as much of America has, in the past 15 years. She was able to openly disagree with Melissa Etheridge, one of the panelists, yet still show compassion and understanding for her and where she comes from. And it didn't come across as political posturing. It came across as compassionate yet realistic. And having those kinds of qualities, while putting aside some of the poisonous partisanship that divides us as Americans, would be a real asset in a President. And while Senator Clinton openly said she wouldn't agree with everybody in the room on everything, she would be a true friend of the LGBT community. She seemed the least uncomfortable of all the candidates, and the most natural, surrounded by such an audience.

Thank you for indulging my late night, madly musings. I have promised to try being concise in this blog, but this is an issue of importance to me, as those of you who know me can understand. But at least this isn't a "wonky" issue, where I am talking insider baseball. This is a value issue, and it's an issue America is being forced to confront, a population that has always been a part of our country, making incredible contributions, that America is finally having to acknowledge. And I thank God that we are moving the right direction on this issue, and I ask God for the patience to get us the rest of the way to the top of this mountain.

Now that illegal immigrants can't get government services in AZ, just how much are we taxpayers saving?

The recent news is that the State of Arizona will now run a deficit in the fiscal year that started July 1. The state may eventually need to cut programs and services to save money, but don't expect the state to come into any cash windfalls now that voters (and the legislature) have tightened rules making those in the country illegally ineligible for government benefits, such as English classes or in state tuition. In fact, since state agencies have been forced to check identification and begin verifying eligibility based on citizenship/legal residency, very few people have been denied benefits. And Coconino Community College spent $190,000 to comply with the new set of laws and verify all their students' eligibility, yet only four students were found to be ineligible for scholarships or in state tuition. Now I'm no math wizard, but I have attended community colleges in Arizona (and one of our state's universities). It seems to me that if the laws designed to keep illegal immigrants from receiving government benefits had never gone into effect, and Coconino Community College instead just gave scholarships to those four students (who may have been undocumented/illegal), then the taxpayers would still be several thousand dollars ahead. Right? I mean, did they really save $190,000 by not giving scholarships or in state tuition to those four students? It sounds like a bad investment of our tax dollars to me. And it sounds like Rep. Russell Pearce is not the fiscal conservative he claims to be.

I'm back!!! And more tax whinings...

I apologize for any of you eagerly awaiting my next dosage of...musings. I had a very enjoyable vacation in San Francisco. Believe it or not, it was my first time there. Anyway, there was a great letter to the editor in the Republic on Sunday talking about the people who want all the services our taxes pay for (fire, police, schools, etc.) but just don't want to pay the taxes necessary to get them. It's brief, so check it out.