Yesterday morning we had an unusual end to a usual crime here in Tucson. Sometime around 7:30 AM, a pickup truck pulled into the Circle K at 22nd & Prudence, and one man and two women got out. The driver remained behind, presumably to keep the motor running while the three went in.
Those three quickly emerged with four cases of Bud Light. It was a beer theft. My cousin Todd and I witnessed one once at a convenience store.....the driver parks where the clerk can't see the car (and license plate) and the next thing you know someone is wildly running out with a 12 pack. We saw some young punk make off with a 12 pack, whereupon the car quickly sped away once the goods (and thief) were in the car.
Anyway, yesterday morning's was a little more brazen. Three thieves walked in, and between the three of them there were four cases of Bud Light. Why they went for Bud Light instead of Moosehead is one of the several parameters of this incident that doesn't make sense, but that's of little consequence to the big picture. A brazen act of petty theft was committed, and these three quickly deposited their stolen goods into the bed of the pickup, after which they joined the driver. The driver then took off heading west on 22nd Street.
At that point, it is believed that a witness gave chase to this truck. We do know that the truck with its payload of both booty and thieves were in flight, and heading for the intersection of 22nd & Kolb, which is an intersection that's among the top ten when it comes to accidents.
The truck turned north on Kolb. Shortly after this turn, the driver hit another vehicle, and continued northbound. I am going to presume that this truck was traveling at a high rate of speed, as it approached the turnoff to Langley, which would have been in the left lane. The truck made the turn at Langley, and it can only be presumed that the driver of the truck was suffering from some sort of adrenaline rush, like the kind I got as a teenager when I was running from a car that my friends and I had pelted with snowballs, where I vaulted a fence to evade capture (this was back in 1975, when we were living in Manassas, Virginia). I'm sure though that the driver was having a bigger one than I had had. He was a major participant in a beer theft, and it was time to get the royal hell out of there so that they could then go off somewhere and laugh about what they pulled off while getting drunk in the process.
After the truck entered Langley, the driver lost control. What happened then, in a quick succession of milliseconds, was that the truck overturned, ejecting the contents of the truck bed and the driver. The cargo itself separated into several dozen individual bottles of Bud Light which ended up being strewn over a good section of Kolb Road. The truck came to rest in a ditch, pinning the driver. His three passengers quickly got out and fled on foot. The rollover was reported at 7:37 AM, and in short order the Tucson Police Department secured the scene. The Pima County Sheriff's Posse came out to assist in the search of the suspects, bringing bloodhounds. At least one of the passengers was injured as that blood belonging to one of them was observed.
The driver ended up dying at the scene. The passengers ended up at large. Kolb Road was closed to traffic for several hours between 22nd and Broadway. In the afternoon, the passengers were still at large, and the Tucson Police identified the fatality as 37 year old Henry T. Dennison.
Being the somewhat curious person that I am, I found myself doing some research on this Henry T. Dennison. Online court records showed that he had several traffic offenses, including running a red light and a DUI. He also was criminally charged with possession of drug paraphernalia. Last month, on the 9th of May to be exact, a criminal complaint of shoplifting was filed against him, with a pending court action on this. For reasons known only to Henry T. Dennison and his "friends" who quickly abandoned him, he wasn't ready to quit shoplifting, only this time he wasn't going to do the actual dirty work of it himself.
What I read in the court records didn't surprise me, but it still made little sense. Like those gangbangers in last month's robbery of the auto stereo installer, he had a criminal record, and like that 18 year old gangbanger who was killed in the course of the robbery, Henry T. Dennison met his end in the commission of crime. Even though I found myself wondering why he didn't learn from last month's shoplifting bust, I decided to do a little more research on Henry T. Dennison.
Henry T. Dennison showed up in the records of the Arizona Corporation Commission. He was listed as a Director of Henden Corporation, a firm here in Tucson that excavates sites for construction purposes. He lived in an upscale neighborhood, and although he wasn't listed as the President of Henden (someone else has that title) I think it's possible that he was a principal owner. The latest filing with the Commission showed that this corporation employed fewer than 25, and that annual sales were between $750,000 and $1.2 million.
After collecting all of this and digesting this, I'm left with the following questions.
Why did he feel the need to steal four cases of Bud Light? Surely as a major player in a local business he could have well afforded to pay for this, but he must have figured that he could get it out of that Circle K without having to pay for it. And he was right. He got out of there and had the same amount of money on him (and in his checking account, if he would have used debit otherwise) that he did when he pulled into the parking lot. He knew that he was going to have to make a quick getaway. For all we know, he may have engineered beer thefts before.
The next question is, what of his three fair weather friends? At least one of them was injured to the point of bleeding. They may have suffered broken bones. Whatever their condition, they were all well enough to flee on foot. They have undoubtedly read about themselves in the local paper and/or seen the reports about what they did on the news. Are these three hiding out together, or separately? Did they feel the need for some more beer now that their stash was destroyed? Did they actually pay for some beer later on that afternoon? Do they plan on attending the funeral of Henry T. Dennison?
Either way you slice this, this is a strange story. The more research I did into this, the more bizarre it became.
One criminal career came to an abrubt end yesterday morning.
What remains to be seen is if three other criminal careers will continue.
LINK
VIDEO REPORT
AND ONE MORE LINK
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Sunday, June 20, 2010
I, Robot
I, Robot is the title of a "book" by science fiction master Isaac Asimov. Although not written as a "book", it is a collection of short stories that he wrote from 1941 to 1950. It was tied together as a "book" with the short stories being told in the form of recollections from Dr. Susan Calvin, a robot psychologist with the fictional U.S. Robots and Mechanical Men, Inc., who is narrating stories about her career to an interviewer.
As you have correctly surmised, these stories are about robots. In writing about robots, Dr. Asimov made it clear that they are subject to The Three Laws of Robotics. These Laws are:
1. A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings except where such order would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
These Three Laws of Robotics start out the novel, so that the reader instantly knows that he's not going to be reading about where a bunch of mechanical Frankenstein monsters end up taking over the earth. What happens instead is a series of situations as the robots progressively develop from non-speaking models to those that speak, to those that have reasoning capabilities, and there's even one robot that has the ability to read minds.
As the robots are progressing into newer and better models, mankind itself is progressing. We see the human race begin their conquest of space. Two characters, Greg Powell and Mike Donovan, are field testing the newer models as they work on the planet Mercury, later on a space station, and Dr. Calvin herself travels to Hyper Base, which we deduce is on an asteroid where scientists and engineers are developing the hyperatomic drive so that mankind's dream of interstellar travel can be realized. Later on, the hyperspace barrier is broken, and travel to distant star systems is made possible faster than the speed of light.
As the end of the book draws near, there is the suggestion that a robot who looks exactly like a human being has been constructed and runs for political office. This character goes on to play a key role in the final chapter, a story called "The Evitable Conflict". At this time, super machines have been created to help with the administration of Earth's resources. The Three Laws, which were put into place to prevent the robots from taking over, have prevented them from taking over........or have they?
I first read I, Robot back in 1976, during my senior year of high school. It was one of the required reading novels assigned to me in an English class. I enjoyed reading this back then, I enjoyed it again last year, and even though I know the stories I know that I would find this book to be good reading if I were to pick it up again today.
As for why I read this fairly recently, it's due to a renewed interest in the books that Isaac Asimov wrote. He's known for his "Foundation" series of novels, which I read in my first year in college, and I recently decided that I wanted to re-read them. Having lost my copies of these books in one of my moves, it was necessary to re-purchase them, but while at the bookstore I learned then that he wrote more "Foundation" novels. I picked up Prelude to Foundation, found it to be a good read, and learned thru the book (and thru some online research) that Dr. Asimov decided to tie the "Robot" novels, the "Galactic Empire" novels and the "Foundation" novels into the same "universe". After reading Prelude to Foundation, I realized that I could have several hours of entertainment by reading the whole shebang of novels......of which the starting point is I, Robot.
By the way, more robot stories, including those found in I, Robot can be found in Robot Visions. Robot Visions also includes several essays by Dr. Asimov in which he explained why he felt it necessary to include The Three Laws.
Two weekends from now Lynette and I will be in Wisconsin. We are making a side trip to Iowa so that I can visit with Marge and Tony.
We're going to be gone for ten days. I will be bringing my laptop and checking email as time permits, and if I can, I might post some updates on what we're doing. I expect that visiting with her relatives and getting to know them will take up most of our time.
I'm not sure if there will be many opportunities to play "tourist". I do like to explore, and I'm especially fascinated with going to places that I've never gone to before. I have been to the state capitol building in Madison, and I've been to downtown Chicago. I wouldn't mind seeing the state capitol again but I can't think of a reason to see Chicago aside from visiting the eastern terminus of the old US 66 (I've been interested in highway history as of late).
It would be neat to see the circus museum in Baraboo, and I've heard about a mustard museum somewhere in southern Wisconsin, but I think that family has priority, and to be honest, I need to make the most of my opportunity in getting to know them.
That is going to be it for this evening. I'm currently reading The Stars, Like Dust, also by Isaac Asimov, and it's a hard one to put down.
As you have correctly surmised, these stories are about robots. In writing about robots, Dr. Asimov made it clear that they are subject to The Three Laws of Robotics. These Laws are:
1. A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings except where such order would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
These Three Laws of Robotics start out the novel, so that the reader instantly knows that he's not going to be reading about where a bunch of mechanical Frankenstein monsters end up taking over the earth. What happens instead is a series of situations as the robots progressively develop from non-speaking models to those that speak, to those that have reasoning capabilities, and there's even one robot that has the ability to read minds.
As the robots are progressing into newer and better models, mankind itself is progressing. We see the human race begin their conquest of space. Two characters, Greg Powell and Mike Donovan, are field testing the newer models as they work on the planet Mercury, later on a space station, and Dr. Calvin herself travels to Hyper Base, which we deduce is on an asteroid where scientists and engineers are developing the hyperatomic drive so that mankind's dream of interstellar travel can be realized. Later on, the hyperspace barrier is broken, and travel to distant star systems is made possible faster than the speed of light.
As the end of the book draws near, there is the suggestion that a robot who looks exactly like a human being has been constructed and runs for political office. This character goes on to play a key role in the final chapter, a story called "The Evitable Conflict". At this time, super machines have been created to help with the administration of Earth's resources. The Three Laws, which were put into place to prevent the robots from taking over, have prevented them from taking over........or have they?
* * * * * * *
I first read I, Robot back in 1976, during my senior year of high school. It was one of the required reading novels assigned to me in an English class. I enjoyed reading this back then, I enjoyed it again last year, and even though I know the stories I know that I would find this book to be good reading if I were to pick it up again today.
As for why I read this fairly recently, it's due to a renewed interest in the books that Isaac Asimov wrote. He's known for his "Foundation" series of novels, which I read in my first year in college, and I recently decided that I wanted to re-read them. Having lost my copies of these books in one of my moves, it was necessary to re-purchase them, but while at the bookstore I learned then that he wrote more "Foundation" novels. I picked up Prelude to Foundation, found it to be a good read, and learned thru the book (and thru some online research) that Dr. Asimov decided to tie the "Robot" novels, the "Galactic Empire" novels and the "Foundation" novels into the same "universe". After reading Prelude to Foundation, I realized that I could have several hours of entertainment by reading the whole shebang of novels......of which the starting point is I, Robot.
* * * * * * *
By the way, more robot stories, including those found in I, Robot can be found in Robot Visions. Robot Visions also includes several essays by Dr. Asimov in which he explained why he felt it necessary to include The Three Laws.
* * * * * * *
Two weekends from now Lynette and I will be in Wisconsin. We are making a side trip to Iowa so that I can visit with Marge and Tony.
We're going to be gone for ten days. I will be bringing my laptop and checking email as time permits, and if I can, I might post some updates on what we're doing. I expect that visiting with her relatives and getting to know them will take up most of our time.
I'm not sure if there will be many opportunities to play "tourist". I do like to explore, and I'm especially fascinated with going to places that I've never gone to before. I have been to the state capitol building in Madison, and I've been to downtown Chicago. I wouldn't mind seeing the state capitol again but I can't think of a reason to see Chicago aside from visiting the eastern terminus of the old US 66 (I've been interested in highway history as of late).
It would be neat to see the circus museum in Baraboo, and I've heard about a mustard museum somewhere in southern Wisconsin, but I think that family has priority, and to be honest, I need to make the most of my opportunity in getting to know them.
* * * * * * *
That is going to be it for this evening. I'm currently reading The Stars, Like Dust, also by Isaac Asimov, and it's a hard one to put down.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
To San Jose and Back
Last Friday Lynette and I flew out to San Jose. The one in California, that is (there's one in Costa Rica too). The occasion was my niece Isabelle's #6 birthday party, but the prime motivation was to introduce Lynette to my family, and they to her. That trip had a way of sneaking up on us in the same manner that most trips do.
There you are, minding your own business, and you know that you've got a trip coming up. OK, you know it's coming, but you're still minding your own business. Eventually it hits you two days before that you need to start packing, and you'd better pack then because if you don't then you'll find out about the laundry that you need to do before you can pack your bag. I mean, most of us like to travel with clean clothes, and even if you're visiting family members it's still good form to wear clean clothes.
Yes, there was a frantic preparation period, and I was up until one in the morning on Wednesday night trying to get ready. I have class on Wednesday nights and the laundry needed doing. Even though I wasn't going to climb on board the plane until Friday morning I still needed to leave for Queen Creek on Thursday afternoon/evening. My frantic period was a little on the intense side, and I felt overwhelmed.
Anyway, when we arrived in San Jose, we were met at the airport by my parents, and I think my parents and Lynette ended up having an instant liking for each other. That's really good, because I think that whoever it is that you're contemplating marrying is going to have to "fit in", so to speak. I knew Lynette would, but there's still having to see it for yourself.
We returned yesterday, and regrettably, there wasn't time to see any tourist attractions aside from Santa Cruz. We did get to visit with Mark & Xiuwen, as well as Chip, Gabriela and Violeta.
It was good being there.
I don't miss living in San Jose one bit. I lived there for sixteen years and seven years in Santa Cruz, and I do not miss the crowds, the traffic, the high taxes, and the killer commutes.
I do miss the people there that I know, and I try to get back there from time to time.
As for meeting family members, we're not done yet.
On the 30th we get back on the plane, and this time we meet her family members in Illinois and Wisconsin. I'm looking forward to that, as that midwest food has this freshness to it that you can't get anywhere else in the country, and it's nice to see something different.
And for Lynette.......well........I'm still in awe of what a great find she is.
There you are, minding your own business, and you know that you've got a trip coming up. OK, you know it's coming, but you're still minding your own business. Eventually it hits you two days before that you need to start packing, and you'd better pack then because if you don't then you'll find out about the laundry that you need to do before you can pack your bag. I mean, most of us like to travel with clean clothes, and even if you're visiting family members it's still good form to wear clean clothes.
Yes, there was a frantic preparation period, and I was up until one in the morning on Wednesday night trying to get ready. I have class on Wednesday nights and the laundry needed doing. Even though I wasn't going to climb on board the plane until Friday morning I still needed to leave for Queen Creek on Thursday afternoon/evening. My frantic period was a little on the intense side, and I felt overwhelmed.
Anyway, when we arrived in San Jose, we were met at the airport by my parents, and I think my parents and Lynette ended up having an instant liking for each other. That's really good, because I think that whoever it is that you're contemplating marrying is going to have to "fit in", so to speak. I knew Lynette would, but there's still having to see it for yourself.
We returned yesterday, and regrettably, there wasn't time to see any tourist attractions aside from Santa Cruz. We did get to visit with Mark & Xiuwen, as well as Chip, Gabriela and Violeta.
It was good being there.
I don't miss living in San Jose one bit. I lived there for sixteen years and seven years in Santa Cruz, and I do not miss the crowds, the traffic, the high taxes, and the killer commutes.
I do miss the people there that I know, and I try to get back there from time to time.
As for meeting family members, we're not done yet.
On the 30th we get back on the plane, and this time we meet her family members in Illinois and Wisconsin. I'm looking forward to that, as that midwest food has this freshness to it that you can't get anywhere else in the country, and it's nice to see something different.
And for Lynette.......well........I'm still in awe of what a great find she is.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
A Robbery Gone Wrong....or....Another Unforgettable Scanner Story
Yesterday evening it was necessary to run some errands. I don't really like running them, but it seems as if every day one is confronted with the need to do "maintenance" in one own's life, and in my case that meant running to the supermarket to stock up on provisions that meet an anticipated need for the coming weekend.
When I got home, I went upstairs to my computer office, turned on the computer, and then my scanner. Yep, that's the "police" scanner that I've mentioned before......it can get me radio traffic originating from police, fire, paramedics, airports, aircraft, railroads, businesses, and even satellites if I can know when one is passing over and which frequency it's beeping on.
When I turned it on, I was hearing radio traffic direct some paramedic units to take care of some shooting victims. One of the police frequencies was also active, as that there had just been a multiple shooting near the intersection of Stone and Fort Lowell, and they needed some units to close off the area until the bad guys were caught. They were looking for two of them, and for the next thirty minutes or so there was plenty of radio traffic as they were securing the scene and the paramedics were administering emergency medical aid.
It is here where I'm going to digress and tell you what a scanner can tell you and what it can't tell you.
One, you have a front row seat, so to speak, as you're listening to radio traffic in realtime. If you understand the police codes, you can instantly know what kind of criminal activity is happening.
Two, what you're hearing is not Adam 12, Dragnet, or Hawaii Five-O. It is not fiction. It is "fact", inasmuch as what is being reported on the radio is only the best information available at the time, and may or may not be entirely accurate (most of the time it is, but suspect information is only as reliable as the witness who gave it).
Three, the scanner does *not* tell you some certain things. I knew that there were shooting "victims". The paramedics call them "victims" as that they are people in immediate need of medical treatment, and in that sense the term "victim" does not describe the recipient of criminal activity. The radio traffic, the raw data that is, told a story that kept me in my chair for a good hour or so, but sometimes when the data is re-examined a better understanding of the facts can emerge.
So what really happened?
Four gang members took it upon themselves to rob a business that specializes in stereo installation for automobiles. I don't know why this particular business was targeted, but it was. Four young hoodlums for some reason were suffering from some sort of profit motive. Maybe they had intelligence that there was cash on the premises. In a strictly general sense, and I'm not trying to be racist here, some ethnic groups prefer the use of cash as opposed to credit cards or checks. Given the location of the business, it's not out of the question that there may have been cash on the premises if their clientele in a strictly general sense, uses cash. There may, or may not have been, a few thousand dollars in hundred dollar bills that the criminals were after. And, the criminals may also have been after some merchandise. We don't know.
Anyway, in the course of the robbery, the business owner was shot. The robbers then confronted an employee who was there, and the business owner then picked up a shotgun and shot one of the robbers. The employee then took advantage of that distraction to get a handgun, whereupon a shootout ensued. When it was over, one robber was dead, another was taken to the hospital with life-threatening injuries, another was taken to the hospital for non life-threatening injuries, and the fourth robber was taken to jail. The business owner appears to have only suffered a flesh wound and is alive and well.
I have since checked online court records for further information.
All four of the robbers had criminal records. The one who was killed was 18 years old. Two of the surviving robbers are brothers, and one has already been charged with first degree murder, and the others I'm sure, will also be charged once they are released from the hospital.
Why the murder charge?
Under Arizona law, if a person dies during the commission of a felony, the person or persons committing the felony can and will be charged with capital murder in the first degree. There is potential here for a death sentence, and in this kind of circumstance if the victim of the felony fires a weapon in self defense and kills one of the criminals, it will be the criminal's accomplices who end up getting charged. My understanding is that this is also the case in California. As for the Arizona law, I ended up learning that when I was being questioned for prospective juror service in an instance where an accomplice was killed and the mastermind was charged with murder.
Is that fair?
Well, look at this way. If a robber enters a business waving a gun, I think it's reasonable to assume that the robber is prepared to use that gun if things aren't going to go his way. If you have doubts on that, then feel free to contact that business owner who was shot last night. And I can empathize with that business owner, as that I too was staring at the business end of a handgun when the Jack-in-the-Box I worked at was being robbed. I really thought for a few moments that I was going to die.
Now was it right for the business owner to pick up his shotgun? Was it right for the employee to get his handgun and return fire?
There are no doubt people out there who would rather grieve for the 18 year old who was killed last night in the practice of criminal enterprise. They probably think that the owner and employee lowered themselves by taking this kind of action. Perhaps they think the "system" somehow failed that 18 year old and his accomplices, and that they view the owner and employee as being the "real" criminals. Maybe in some twisted way, the robbers were trying to correct a societal wrong, as that it somehow wasn't right for that business owner to possess more money than the robbers.
I think that's easy for someone to take that kind of viewpoint, especially if that someone has never had the experience of having a loaded gun pointed at them in the commission of a felony.
I know exactly what that's like. I've been in that spot before. And I never again want to be in that spot.
As for that business owner and his employee, their lives will never be the same. They may face retaliatory attacks from other gang members, or they may not. But they were in a position where deadly force was used against them, and they had to return deadly force to escape with their lives. That could not have felt "good" for them. It could not have.
It is unfortunate that there are bad people out there.
It is even more unfortunate when the bad guys force you into a drastic action.
References:
LINK ONE
LINK TWO
When I got home, I went upstairs to my computer office, turned on the computer, and then my scanner. Yep, that's the "police" scanner that I've mentioned before......it can get me radio traffic originating from police, fire, paramedics, airports, aircraft, railroads, businesses, and even satellites if I can know when one is passing over and which frequency it's beeping on.
When I turned it on, I was hearing radio traffic direct some paramedic units to take care of some shooting victims. One of the police frequencies was also active, as that there had just been a multiple shooting near the intersection of Stone and Fort Lowell, and they needed some units to close off the area until the bad guys were caught. They were looking for two of them, and for the next thirty minutes or so there was plenty of radio traffic as they were securing the scene and the paramedics were administering emergency medical aid.
It is here where I'm going to digress and tell you what a scanner can tell you and what it can't tell you.
One, you have a front row seat, so to speak, as you're listening to radio traffic in realtime. If you understand the police codes, you can instantly know what kind of criminal activity is happening.
Two, what you're hearing is not Adam 12, Dragnet, or Hawaii Five-O. It is not fiction. It is "fact", inasmuch as what is being reported on the radio is only the best information available at the time, and may or may not be entirely accurate (most of the time it is, but suspect information is only as reliable as the witness who gave it).
Three, the scanner does *not* tell you some certain things. I knew that there were shooting "victims". The paramedics call them "victims" as that they are people in immediate need of medical treatment, and in that sense the term "victim" does not describe the recipient of criminal activity. The radio traffic, the raw data that is, told a story that kept me in my chair for a good hour or so, but sometimes when the data is re-examined a better understanding of the facts can emerge.
So what really happened?
Four gang members took it upon themselves to rob a business that specializes in stereo installation for automobiles. I don't know why this particular business was targeted, but it was. Four young hoodlums for some reason were suffering from some sort of profit motive. Maybe they had intelligence that there was cash on the premises. In a strictly general sense, and I'm not trying to be racist here, some ethnic groups prefer the use of cash as opposed to credit cards or checks. Given the location of the business, it's not out of the question that there may have been cash on the premises if their clientele in a strictly general sense, uses cash. There may, or may not have been, a few thousand dollars in hundred dollar bills that the criminals were after. And, the criminals may also have been after some merchandise. We don't know.
Anyway, in the course of the robbery, the business owner was shot. The robbers then confronted an employee who was there, and the business owner then picked up a shotgun and shot one of the robbers. The employee then took advantage of that distraction to get a handgun, whereupon a shootout ensued. When it was over, one robber was dead, another was taken to the hospital with life-threatening injuries, another was taken to the hospital for non life-threatening injuries, and the fourth robber was taken to jail. The business owner appears to have only suffered a flesh wound and is alive and well.
I have since checked online court records for further information.
All four of the robbers had criminal records. The one who was killed was 18 years old. Two of the surviving robbers are brothers, and one has already been charged with first degree murder, and the others I'm sure, will also be charged once they are released from the hospital.
Why the murder charge?
Under Arizona law, if a person dies during the commission of a felony, the person or persons committing the felony can and will be charged with capital murder in the first degree. There is potential here for a death sentence, and in this kind of circumstance if the victim of the felony fires a weapon in self defense and kills one of the criminals, it will be the criminal's accomplices who end up getting charged. My understanding is that this is also the case in California. As for the Arizona law, I ended up learning that when I was being questioned for prospective juror service in an instance where an accomplice was killed and the mastermind was charged with murder.
Is that fair?
Well, look at this way. If a robber enters a business waving a gun, I think it's reasonable to assume that the robber is prepared to use that gun if things aren't going to go his way. If you have doubts on that, then feel free to contact that business owner who was shot last night. And I can empathize with that business owner, as that I too was staring at the business end of a handgun when the Jack-in-the-Box I worked at was being robbed. I really thought for a few moments that I was going to die.
Now was it right for the business owner to pick up his shotgun? Was it right for the employee to get his handgun and return fire?
There are no doubt people out there who would rather grieve for the 18 year old who was killed last night in the practice of criminal enterprise. They probably think that the owner and employee lowered themselves by taking this kind of action. Perhaps they think the "system" somehow failed that 18 year old and his accomplices, and that they view the owner and employee as being the "real" criminals. Maybe in some twisted way, the robbers were trying to correct a societal wrong, as that it somehow wasn't right for that business owner to possess more money than the robbers.
I think that's easy for someone to take that kind of viewpoint, especially if that someone has never had the experience of having a loaded gun pointed at them in the commission of a felony.
I know exactly what that's like. I've been in that spot before. And I never again want to be in that spot.
As for that business owner and his employee, their lives will never be the same. They may face retaliatory attacks from other gang members, or they may not. But they were in a position where deadly force was used against them, and they had to return deadly force to escape with their lives. That could not have felt "good" for them. It could not have.
It is unfortunate that there are bad people out there.
It is even more unfortunate when the bad guys force you into a drastic action.
* * * * * * *
References:
LINK ONE
LINK TWO
Monday, May 10, 2010
Some Random Thoughts for Monday, 5/10/10
If you've been watching the so-called "mainstream" media, you are likely not aware that Nashville has experienced a major flood. A dear friend of mine who lives there has forwarded me a link from a resident who can comment on this in a manner that no one else can.
As you're reading this, you may wish to keep in mind that the writer is exactly the type of person that the White House, the Democratic National Committee, and the Republican National Committee have an extreme amount of contempt for.
May God bless the good people of Tennessee.
LINK
A short musing about Arizona's new immigration law, SB1070, and then I'll stop the politics for now.
The main reason why this law was passed was that the Federal government is NOT securing the border. President after President has promised us that the border will be secured, but the end result is both parties wanting "amnesty" for those who are here illegally.
That's one reason why I accuse the RNC and DNC of having contempt for the American citizen.
Last week I picked up 300 Eisenhower dollars, or "Ikes", at one of the banks here. These are often called "silver dollars" though real silver dollars for circulation were last minted in 1935. The Ikes were issued to honor Dwight Eisenhower, who was President when I was born, and to honor the Apollo 11 moon landing.
The Ikes were last minted in 1978. Unbeknownst to most folks, they are still available, but you're likely going to have to talk the bank into ordering them for you.
So what am I doing with 300 of these?
Well, I've made arrangements with two friends of mine here in Tucson who manage businesses. Both gentlemen have agreed to buy these off of me to hand out in change to their customers. I've also sold some to co-workers, and I've kept a few of them for myself.
The feedback that I've gotten so far is that people are getting a kick out of getting these in their change. I mean, how often does that happen these days, getting an Ike in your change? It didn't happen very often during the '70s unless you hung around casinos in Nevada.
I'm not sure how much longer I'm going to keep this up, that is, buying Ikes from the bank and then re-selling them to businesses. But I get a kick out of having them in my pocket again (that hasn't happened since I was in high school) and they're fun to spend.
I'm also buying half dollars and two dollar bills from the bank, and yes, I'm making arrangements to get those handed out in change as well, as well as spending them myself.
Next month I am taking Lynette up to San Jose to meet my parents. I am also going to try to introduce her to some friends but I'm not sure I'll get to introduce her to everyone who I want to introduce her to.
I'm also going to show her the old haunts. The Jack-in-the-Box that I used to work at is still there, (the one that I was at when we were robbed), but the Payless Super Drug Store that I worked at at Blossom Hill and Almaden was demolished a few years ago (it became RiteAid before it was torn down).
In July we'll be in Wisconsin, and she'll be showing me her old haunts.
I am really blessed to be paired up with her. Any words I write to describe that will not do it justice.
I guess all I can say is that I'm not used to having this much happiness. It's really overwhelming at times.
We were up at my cousin Todd's in Gilbert on Saturday. Todd and I needed to get together to apply for deer tags for the 2010 fall hunt. We're targeting the area northwest of Willcox for mule deer, with Graham County being a second choice.
We would rather have attempted the area near Green Valley, but they're only issuing 25 tags this year. With the unit we applied for, my recollection is that 25o tags each are being issued for the early and the middle hunts.
This means that I'll have to fit in some scouting runs in an unfamiliar area, but this will be an excuse to visit this one Mexican restaurant in Willcox that I recently discovered (and like).
That is going to be it for now.
As the Vulcans would say, "live long, and prosper".
As you're reading this, you may wish to keep in mind that the writer is exactly the type of person that the White House, the Democratic National Committee, and the Republican National Committee have an extreme amount of contempt for.
May God bless the good people of Tennessee.
LINK
* * * * * * *
A short musing about Arizona's new immigration law, SB1070, and then I'll stop the politics for now.
The main reason why this law was passed was that the Federal government is NOT securing the border. President after President has promised us that the border will be secured, but the end result is both parties wanting "amnesty" for those who are here illegally.
That's one reason why I accuse the RNC and DNC of having contempt for the American citizen.
* * * * * * *
Last week I picked up 300 Eisenhower dollars, or "Ikes", at one of the banks here. These are often called "silver dollars" though real silver dollars for circulation were last minted in 1935. The Ikes were issued to honor Dwight Eisenhower, who was President when I was born, and to honor the Apollo 11 moon landing.
The Ikes were last minted in 1978. Unbeknownst to most folks, they are still available, but you're likely going to have to talk the bank into ordering them for you.
So what am I doing with 300 of these?
Well, I've made arrangements with two friends of mine here in Tucson who manage businesses. Both gentlemen have agreed to buy these off of me to hand out in change to their customers. I've also sold some to co-workers, and I've kept a few of them for myself.
The feedback that I've gotten so far is that people are getting a kick out of getting these in their change. I mean, how often does that happen these days, getting an Ike in your change? It didn't happen very often during the '70s unless you hung around casinos in Nevada.
I'm not sure how much longer I'm going to keep this up, that is, buying Ikes from the bank and then re-selling them to businesses. But I get a kick out of having them in my pocket again (that hasn't happened since I was in high school) and they're fun to spend.
I'm also buying half dollars and two dollar bills from the bank, and yes, I'm making arrangements to get those handed out in change as well, as well as spending them myself.
* * * * * * *
Next month I am taking Lynette up to San Jose to meet my parents. I am also going to try to introduce her to some friends but I'm not sure I'll get to introduce her to everyone who I want to introduce her to.
I'm also going to show her the old haunts. The Jack-in-the-Box that I used to work at is still there, (the one that I was at when we were robbed), but the Payless Super Drug Store that I worked at at Blossom Hill and Almaden was demolished a few years ago (it became RiteAid before it was torn down).
In July we'll be in Wisconsin, and she'll be showing me her old haunts.
I am really blessed to be paired up with her. Any words I write to describe that will not do it justice.
I guess all I can say is that I'm not used to having this much happiness. It's really overwhelming at times.
* * * * * * *
We were up at my cousin Todd's in Gilbert on Saturday. Todd and I needed to get together to apply for deer tags for the 2010 fall hunt. We're targeting the area northwest of Willcox for mule deer, with Graham County being a second choice.
We would rather have attempted the area near Green Valley, but they're only issuing 25 tags this year. With the unit we applied for, my recollection is that 25o tags each are being issued for the early and the middle hunts.
This means that I'll have to fit in some scouting runs in an unfamiliar area, but this will be an excuse to visit this one Mexican restaurant in Willcox that I recently discovered (and like).
* * * * * * *
That is going to be it for now.
As the Vulcans would say, "live long, and prosper".
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Concealed Weapons in Arizona
Two days ago Arizona governor Jan Brewer signed into legislation, a bill that would make carrying a concealed weapon in Arizona without a permit, in most cases, legal. This legislation has catapulted Arizona into the headlines on the Drudge Report and in the national media. As a resident, I would like to tell you what this means from a resident's point of view, but first, some background.
When the nation was founded, it was understood that you not only had the right to possess a weapon, but you also had the right to carry it. This right, as far as I know, was not questioned or regulated for the first century of our nation's existence. You can say that it was universally understood to be a right to possess and carry, and that you had the right to self-defense. It wasn't really questioned when Arizona was a territory, as that even the so-called "cowboys", whom can be viewed as a criminal element (especially in Tombstone in 1881) had the right to possess and carry.
It was around that time though that legislation restricting the concealed carry of a firearm was coming into vogue among several states. The southern states, wishing to keep the newly-freed slave population in their place, were among the first to enact laws restricting the carrying of a concealed weapon. Texas outlawed the practice in 1871. Other states enacted similar bans over a period of time. California outlawed the carrying of a concealed weapon without a permit in 1923, and Minnesota finally got around to it in 1975. At that time the carrying of a concealed weapon tended to be favored by the criminal element, thus the rationale for passing these kinds of laws. When California passed their law in 1923, they required a permit, and you could not get one unless the chief of police or the sheriff issued you a permit, and you had to show "good cause" for carrying a concealed weapon. Interestingly enough, some of the states that restricted concealed carry did not outlaw "open carry": that is, carrying a firearm in plain view while in a belt holster. Arizona was one of these states......open carry of a firearm remained legal without a permit, and it is still legal here to this day.
By the mid 1980s, only ten states were what we can define as "shall issue". That is, if you had no criminal record and you applied for a concealed weapon permit, or CCW, the permitting authority was required to grant you such a permit. Some states required applicants to complete a firearms safety course while others, such as Washington, did not.
Things began to change in 1987. The state of Florida that year changed their law. The legislature passed a law that made Florida "shall issue". If you had no criminal record and took the class, you would then be issued a permit. This was of some controversy in Florida as that the nay-sayers predicted an escalation of violence. What happened though was that it was the law-abiding who applied for the permit, and revocations of these permits (such as for misconduct involving a firearm) were relatively rare.
Florida going "shall issue" had the effect of catalyzing similar movements in other states. Other states followed suit, with Texas going "shall issue" in 1994 as well as Arizona. Those who were living here at that time have told me that similar predictions of escalation of violence were raised by the nay-sayers. Never mind that "open carry" was legal in Arizona and usually seen in the smaller towns. Increased bloodshed was predicted to take place here. And again, revocations of concealed weapon permits in Arizona were relatively rare.
When the Arizona legislature legalized concealed carry with a permit, they tweaked the "car carry" law as well. We have always had the ability to drive around with a loaded firearm on the front seat of car as long as the weapon was in plain sight. I have had out of staters ask me if this bothers the cops, and the cops that I have talked to really haven't had a problem with that as long as the weapon was plainly visible. The 1994 law added that driving around with a weapon in your glovebox was legal. Your weapon could also be under the front seat if the weapon was in a holster. This was an interesting quirk, as that if your firearm was in a holster and under the front seat, it was legal without a permit. Yet, if the weapon was not in a holster and under the front seat, it was considered 'concealed", and illegal if you did not have a permit. Go figure. (New Mexico got around this by declaring that your motor vehicle was an extension of your home, and the weapon could be anywhere within the vehicle, and Louisiana has that interpretation as well).
Now things are going to change in Arizona as far as the law is concerned. We are going to become the third state that allows the carrying of a concealed weapon without a permit. Vermont does not regulate the transport of firearms; concealed or open carry is legal there, and Vermont does not issue permits. Alaska became the second state to not require a permit, although Alaska will issue you a permit if you want one, but will not require the permit. And here in Arizona, the Department of Public Safety will issue you the permit if you qualify, as that some 30 states will honor the Arizona permit and you will have to have that if you wish to carry a concealed weapon in those states.
Also, you will need a permit if you wish to carry a concealed weapon in any place that serves alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, but you must conceal the weapon and you must not consume alcoholic beverages, and the owner of the establishment permits firearms on the premises. Some restaurants and bars have posted "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED" signs while others have not. The media is not pointing this out, as that they instead want people outside of Arizona to think that we've somehow gone back to the Wild West.
What the media isn't telling you, that in the grand scheme of things, is that the impact is neglible. It's already legal to carry a loaded firearm in a belt holster. I've seen that occasionally here in Tucson, and I've done it myself when I've gone on my ghost town expiditions. On two occasions a law enforcement officer has observed me in the open carry mode, and I was not approached or questioned in any way. If you want to open carry here, it is your right.
As for concealed carry, the reality of the situation is that the criminals are doing it anyway without a permit. Do you really think that a criminal is going to apply for a concealed carry permit? If you do, or if you think that a criminal is cares about compliance to carry laws, I am going to have to tell you that you are sadly mistaken. I know about this from experience, as that I am the survivor of an armed robbery that took place when I was living in San Jose.
My place of employment was robbed at gunpoint. The robber was caught at the scene. The robber was not charged with carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. He was not charged with possessing a loaded firearm in public within the limits of an incorporated city, which is not legal in California. I'm going to guess that his gun was not registered either, which is again, a violation of California law. He took possession, at gunpoint, money that was not his, and he was not charged with armed robbery either. He instead was charged with "attempted" armed robbery and subsequently dealt with in the courts. That should be telling you that California's laws with respect to concealed weapons are not applied to practicing criminals. Instead, California prefers to charge the nurse who is caught with a handgun in her purse since her co-workers have been raped in the parking lot over the past few months.
So, am I in favor of Arizona making it legal to carry a concealed weapon without a permit?
I am, but I'm not done with this yet.
One, I have had a state-issued concealed weapons permit since early 1999 when I moved here. I have taken the class, I have renewed the permit, and when it comes up again for renewal in 2013 I'm going to keep the permit.
Two, I think people here should take the class anyway and apply for the permit. If it were up to me, a "mandatory" firearms safety would be taught in high school, as that I think that our youth must have drilled into them that guns are not toys and that they must be respected. Part of that high school course should include a visit to the morgue where they can see for themselves what happens when guns are misused. (I do think that parents should have the right to exempt their children from this class, which is why I put mandatory in quotes....there are pacifists out there who have the right to their beliefs and I will not force my beliefs onto pacifists).
Three, taking the class does reinforce the notion that there are legal issues and responsibilities when it comes to carrying firearms. Again, I would rather that these things be taught in high schools, but the public education system seems more intent on making our kids think that Christopher Columbus was a genocidal racist than they are in teaching real life issues such as legal matters or how the lending industry works.
I personally would not have a problem if concealed carry without a permit was legal in all fifty states. However, that isn't the case. There are some holdout states that suffer from the mentality that defense of self or home is somehow morally wrong.......Joe and Jane Citizen must instead submit to the criminal rather than draw a gun on that criminal. That isn't right.
The criminal isn't going to go to a police station to ask for an application for a concealed weapons permit. The criminal isn't going to register his gun at the police station if his state's law says that they have to. They just won't do it. They won't. They're criminals, after all.
Arizona is in the process of levelling the playing field.
I hope that other states follow suit.
The new website for Bachman & Turner will go online in a few hours! Check them out, http://www.bachmanandturner.com/.
Summer will soon be here. As I write this, I have chicken in the fridge that will find its way to my barbecue grill in the very near future. I'm hoping that Lynette can get off work early so that she can join me.
If she doesn't make it, then I guess I'll have leftover BBQ chicken for tomorrow night's supper.
Future projects for this blog: I want to start posting some interesting photos that have either found their way to me, and/or those that I have taken. I've been exercising my Canon AE-1 again after a long hiatus.
I also want to devote few posts for some book reviews, as my cousin Jeanette is doing.
I wanted to do that with this post, but with our new law I felt the need to comment on that while that iron was still hot.
Don't forget to pet a dog or a cat. Dogs and cats have a sense of loyalty to people, and we could learn from them.
Also, taking the time to pet a dog or a cat will reduce your blood pressure. It will make the dog or cat feel good too, and they'll appreciate it.
When the nation was founded, it was understood that you not only had the right to possess a weapon, but you also had the right to carry it. This right, as far as I know, was not questioned or regulated for the first century of our nation's existence. You can say that it was universally understood to be a right to possess and carry, and that you had the right to self-defense. It wasn't really questioned when Arizona was a territory, as that even the so-called "cowboys", whom can be viewed as a criminal element (especially in Tombstone in 1881) had the right to possess and carry.
It was around that time though that legislation restricting the concealed carry of a firearm was coming into vogue among several states. The southern states, wishing to keep the newly-freed slave population in their place, were among the first to enact laws restricting the carrying of a concealed weapon. Texas outlawed the practice in 1871. Other states enacted similar bans over a period of time. California outlawed the carrying of a concealed weapon without a permit in 1923, and Minnesota finally got around to it in 1975. At that time the carrying of a concealed weapon tended to be favored by the criminal element, thus the rationale for passing these kinds of laws. When California passed their law in 1923, they required a permit, and you could not get one unless the chief of police or the sheriff issued you a permit, and you had to show "good cause" for carrying a concealed weapon. Interestingly enough, some of the states that restricted concealed carry did not outlaw "open carry": that is, carrying a firearm in plain view while in a belt holster. Arizona was one of these states......open carry of a firearm remained legal without a permit, and it is still legal here to this day.
By the mid 1980s, only ten states were what we can define as "shall issue". That is, if you had no criminal record and you applied for a concealed weapon permit, or CCW, the permitting authority was required to grant you such a permit. Some states required applicants to complete a firearms safety course while others, such as Washington, did not.
Things began to change in 1987. The state of Florida that year changed their law. The legislature passed a law that made Florida "shall issue". If you had no criminal record and took the class, you would then be issued a permit. This was of some controversy in Florida as that the nay-sayers predicted an escalation of violence. What happened though was that it was the law-abiding who applied for the permit, and revocations of these permits (such as for misconduct involving a firearm) were relatively rare.
Florida going "shall issue" had the effect of catalyzing similar movements in other states. Other states followed suit, with Texas going "shall issue" in 1994 as well as Arizona. Those who were living here at that time have told me that similar predictions of escalation of violence were raised by the nay-sayers. Never mind that "open carry" was legal in Arizona and usually seen in the smaller towns. Increased bloodshed was predicted to take place here. And again, revocations of concealed weapon permits in Arizona were relatively rare.
When the Arizona legislature legalized concealed carry with a permit, they tweaked the "car carry" law as well. We have always had the ability to drive around with a loaded firearm on the front seat of car as long as the weapon was in plain sight. I have had out of staters ask me if this bothers the cops, and the cops that I have talked to really haven't had a problem with that as long as the weapon was plainly visible. The 1994 law added that driving around with a weapon in your glovebox was legal. Your weapon could also be under the front seat if the weapon was in a holster. This was an interesting quirk, as that if your firearm was in a holster and under the front seat, it was legal without a permit. Yet, if the weapon was not in a holster and under the front seat, it was considered 'concealed", and illegal if you did not have a permit. Go figure. (New Mexico got around this by declaring that your motor vehicle was an extension of your home, and the weapon could be anywhere within the vehicle, and Louisiana has that interpretation as well).
Now things are going to change in Arizona as far as the law is concerned. We are going to become the third state that allows the carrying of a concealed weapon without a permit. Vermont does not regulate the transport of firearms; concealed or open carry is legal there, and Vermont does not issue permits. Alaska became the second state to not require a permit, although Alaska will issue you a permit if you want one, but will not require the permit. And here in Arizona, the Department of Public Safety will issue you the permit if you qualify, as that some 30 states will honor the Arizona permit and you will have to have that if you wish to carry a concealed weapon in those states.
Also, you will need a permit if you wish to carry a concealed weapon in any place that serves alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, but you must conceal the weapon and you must not consume alcoholic beverages, and the owner of the establishment permits firearms on the premises. Some restaurants and bars have posted "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED" signs while others have not. The media is not pointing this out, as that they instead want people outside of Arizona to think that we've somehow gone back to the Wild West.
What the media isn't telling you, that in the grand scheme of things, is that the impact is neglible. It's already legal to carry a loaded firearm in a belt holster. I've seen that occasionally here in Tucson, and I've done it myself when I've gone on my ghost town expiditions. On two occasions a law enforcement officer has observed me in the open carry mode, and I was not approached or questioned in any way. If you want to open carry here, it is your right.
As for concealed carry, the reality of the situation is that the criminals are doing it anyway without a permit. Do you really think that a criminal is going to apply for a concealed carry permit? If you do, or if you think that a criminal is cares about compliance to carry laws, I am going to have to tell you that you are sadly mistaken. I know about this from experience, as that I am the survivor of an armed robbery that took place when I was living in San Jose.
My place of employment was robbed at gunpoint. The robber was caught at the scene. The robber was not charged with carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. He was not charged with possessing a loaded firearm in public within the limits of an incorporated city, which is not legal in California. I'm going to guess that his gun was not registered either, which is again, a violation of California law. He took possession, at gunpoint, money that was not his, and he was not charged with armed robbery either. He instead was charged with "attempted" armed robbery and subsequently dealt with in the courts. That should be telling you that California's laws with respect to concealed weapons are not applied to practicing criminals. Instead, California prefers to charge the nurse who is caught with a handgun in her purse since her co-workers have been raped in the parking lot over the past few months.
So, am I in favor of Arizona making it legal to carry a concealed weapon without a permit?
I am, but I'm not done with this yet.
One, I have had a state-issued concealed weapons permit since early 1999 when I moved here. I have taken the class, I have renewed the permit, and when it comes up again for renewal in 2013 I'm going to keep the permit.
Two, I think people here should take the class anyway and apply for the permit. If it were up to me, a "mandatory" firearms safety would be taught in high school, as that I think that our youth must have drilled into them that guns are not toys and that they must be respected. Part of that high school course should include a visit to the morgue where they can see for themselves what happens when guns are misused. (I do think that parents should have the right to exempt their children from this class, which is why I put mandatory in quotes....there are pacifists out there who have the right to their beliefs and I will not force my beliefs onto pacifists).
Three, taking the class does reinforce the notion that there are legal issues and responsibilities when it comes to carrying firearms. Again, I would rather that these things be taught in high schools, but the public education system seems more intent on making our kids think that Christopher Columbus was a genocidal racist than they are in teaching real life issues such as legal matters or how the lending industry works.
I personally would not have a problem if concealed carry without a permit was legal in all fifty states. However, that isn't the case. There are some holdout states that suffer from the mentality that defense of self or home is somehow morally wrong.......Joe and Jane Citizen must instead submit to the criminal rather than draw a gun on that criminal. That isn't right.
The criminal isn't going to go to a police station to ask for an application for a concealed weapons permit. The criminal isn't going to register his gun at the police station if his state's law says that they have to. They just won't do it. They won't. They're criminals, after all.
Arizona is in the process of levelling the playing field.
I hope that other states follow suit.
* * * * * * *
The new website for Bachman & Turner will go online in a few hours! Check them out, http://www.bachmanandturner.com/.
* * * * * * *
Summer will soon be here. As I write this, I have chicken in the fridge that will find its way to my barbecue grill in the very near future. I'm hoping that Lynette can get off work early so that she can join me.
If she doesn't make it, then I guess I'll have leftover BBQ chicken for tomorrow night's supper.
* * * * * * *
Future projects for this blog: I want to start posting some interesting photos that have either found their way to me, and/or those that I have taken. I've been exercising my Canon AE-1 again after a long hiatus.
I also want to devote few posts for some book reviews, as my cousin Jeanette is doing.
I wanted to do that with this post, but with our new law I felt the need to comment on that while that iron was still hot.
* * * * * * *
Don't forget to pet a dog or a cat. Dogs and cats have a sense of loyalty to people, and we could learn from them.
Also, taking the time to pet a dog or a cat will reduce your blood pressure. It will make the dog or cat feel good too, and they'll appreciate it.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Reconsidering my (Lack of) Political Affiliation, Part II
In my previous post I openly floated the question as to whether or not I should register as a Republican for the upcoming primary, which will become more of a necessity should John McCain succeed in barring independent voters from voting in his primary. I am now going to present an argument as to why I should not become a Republican. But first, some historical background.
I have lived in Arizona Congressional District 8 (hereinafter referred to as CD8) since February of 1999. The incumbent Congressman was Jim Kolbe, who was in his post for several years. Some viewed him as "moderate", others may have thought he was too far right, and others yet may have thought he was too far left. Whatever the sentiment, I had the sense that he was more popular in this district than he was unpopular, a sentiment borne out with his repeated reelection. All I can tell you is that in my dealings with his office, he was very responsive, sending me a letter that addressed my point. It wasn't a form letter. It was a response to whatever specific concern that I had raised at that time. I may or may not have agreed with what he said, but I always appreciated his taking the time to get back to me.
However, with each election cycle, there was speculation on whether or not he would retire. This began to bubble in the 2003 timeframe. We were figuring that he was going to step down, that maybe it was time to go into retirement, and let someone else have the seat. A conservative state senator named Randy Graf was thinking the same thing, and he made the decision to challenge Jim Kolbe in the Republican Party. The party establishment, of course, paid no attention then to this challenge, but Randy Graf ended up getting 40% of the primary vote....including mine. It wasn't that Jim Kolbe was really all that bad, it was instead a sense that we could do better.
Jim Kolbe went on to win the general election, but after his first year or so into that term he announced that he would be retiring and would not run for re-election in 2006. Then five Republicans who wanted his seat came out of the woodwork. They were Frank Antenori, Steve Huffman, Randy Graf, and two others who I can't remember. The initial reaction from the Republican National Committee (RNC) was "may the best man win" and they indicated that they would stay out of this and then back the primary winner.
It was about that time that President Bush continued his betrayal of the base that elected him by announcing that he wanted amnesty for the 12 million illegal aliens who were in our country. This in turn encouraged the RNC to break the promise that they had made to the voters of District 8. They decided to "anoint" Steve Huffman as the next Congressman.
At that point I was already a registered independent, as that my tipping point had been reached earlier when President Bush nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. I figured that I was giving up my privilege of voting in the Republican primary, but I didn't care at that point. The Republican Party had become the party that they ran against and defeated in 1994. I wanted no part of them at that point.
It wasn't long after that that I felt I had done the right thing. The RNC's anointing of Steve Huffman, a former state legislator, was causing us to scrutinize his record. We knew Randy Graf was a border hawk, but what about Steve Huffman? Steve Huffman was all of a sudden trying to convince us that he would be "tough" on border enforcement, but curiously enough, whenever any border issue came up in the state legislature, he was conveniently absent from the voting record! In other words, he had no track record on this issue to speak of at all!
Meantime, I had learned that according to the Arizona Revised Statutes, that I, as a declared nonpartisan, could vote in the primary of any party that wasn't closed to independent voters. I could show up at the polling station, and vote in the Democratic primary, or in the Republican primary (the Libertarian Party is closed to independents). I then realized that I could go ahead and vote for Randy Graf, although I was equally impressed with Frank Antenori. I figured (and correctly, I might add) that if Steve Huffman were to win the primary, he would run as being tough on the border, and then vote for "amnesty" once elected.
The primary vote was held in September 2006, and Randy Graf won the nomination. In other words, the voters of this district who live here rebelled against the Republican National Committee establishment. The party bosses, who had never set foot in Arizona in all their lives arrogantly decided that they knew better, and we told them otherwise.
This didn't sit well with the RNC. They retaliated against their own voters. They refused to fund the candidacy of Randy Graf, and this ultimately led to Gabrielle Giffords, the Democrat, winning election for CD8.
Should she have won?
At that time, the Republicans had 31% of the registered voters, the Democrats 27%, and the rest were either other parties or independents. This district, owned by the Republicans for 22 years, was given to the Democrats by the RNC, as retaliation for the voters here rejecting their girly-man Steve Huffman. Gabrielle Giffords won re-election again in 2008, and is up again this year.
So what are the Republicans going to do?
I guess that depends. The best known declared candidate is former state senator Jonathan Paton, who resigned his state senate seat a few months ago to formally declare for this race. The next best known candidate after that is ex-Marine Jesse Kelly. Jesse Kelly should be known to you if you've regularly visited the Drudge Report as that I've seen his ad up there numerous times. I don't see the RNC establishment backing him should he win, but I think that they just might back Paton if he wins.
Meantime, I'm still an independent, but I think I'm going to go ahead and register as a Republican for the reasons detailed in my last posting. I really don't want to do this, especially in light of the contempt that the party bosses have for the fine people of this district, but I think it's important to take McCain out sooner rather than later.
Also, there's a rumor that Sheriff Joe is going to run for governor. That's right, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County. He's the sheriff that you've been reading about for several years....the sheriff who brought the chain gangs back to Arizona, the sheriff who makes his inmates wear pink underwear and 1930s style striped prison uniforms, and who just recently is making the prisoners ride exercise bikes if they want to watch TV.
I don't see incumbent governor Jan Brewer winning reelection. She's an improvement over who we had before, but she stumbled badly in her first few months in office and I don't see her winning against Terry Goddard. The voters are angry right now, and I think they'll be even angrier in November.
Other tidbits, then I'll sign.
Things between Lynette and I are very strong, and we're making plans to visit each other's families. This means trips to San Jose and to southern Wisconsin over the next few months. I'm hoping that San Jose will happen in June, and if it does that will be a short one.....but we plan on returning there in November.
In July, we are planning to go to Wisconsin, with a side trip to Iowa since I want to see Aunt Marge and Uncle Tony. Uncle Tony is still recovering from his surgery. Aunt Marge is in excellent spirits. I really admire her; she sets an example during her adversity that I am in awe of.
The new Bachman & Turner CD is in its final stages from what I hear. I don't know if they're coming to Arizona just yet, but I'm sure they'd like to. If not, then hopefully Las Vegas, since I can get up there and enjoy a scenic drive along US93.
At work, my job responsibilities have changed. I'm no longer helping to develop circuit cards. During my last review my supervisor told me that there were some other opportunities within our group that I should consider, and after spending a weekend thinking about it I decided to pitch in and to help out a project that really needs it. I was expecting it to be temporary but I'm now on that one full time.
The best way to describe it is that I am working on what the circuit cards are actually used for. They reside in an assembly, and that assembly resides in another assembly, and it is that second level assembly that I am now working on.
I think it will be a good use of my skills.
I have lived in Arizona Congressional District 8 (hereinafter referred to as CD8) since February of 1999. The incumbent Congressman was Jim Kolbe, who was in his post for several years. Some viewed him as "moderate", others may have thought he was too far right, and others yet may have thought he was too far left. Whatever the sentiment, I had the sense that he was more popular in this district than he was unpopular, a sentiment borne out with his repeated reelection. All I can tell you is that in my dealings with his office, he was very responsive, sending me a letter that addressed my point. It wasn't a form letter. It was a response to whatever specific concern that I had raised at that time. I may or may not have agreed with what he said, but I always appreciated his taking the time to get back to me.
However, with each election cycle, there was speculation on whether or not he would retire. This began to bubble in the 2003 timeframe. We were figuring that he was going to step down, that maybe it was time to go into retirement, and let someone else have the seat. A conservative state senator named Randy Graf was thinking the same thing, and he made the decision to challenge Jim Kolbe in the Republican Party. The party establishment, of course, paid no attention then to this challenge, but Randy Graf ended up getting 40% of the primary vote....including mine. It wasn't that Jim Kolbe was really all that bad, it was instead a sense that we could do better.
Jim Kolbe went on to win the general election, but after his first year or so into that term he announced that he would be retiring and would not run for re-election in 2006. Then five Republicans who wanted his seat came out of the woodwork. They were Frank Antenori, Steve Huffman, Randy Graf, and two others who I can't remember. The initial reaction from the Republican National Committee (RNC) was "may the best man win" and they indicated that they would stay out of this and then back the primary winner.
It was about that time that President Bush continued his betrayal of the base that elected him by announcing that he wanted amnesty for the 12 million illegal aliens who were in our country. This in turn encouraged the RNC to break the promise that they had made to the voters of District 8. They decided to "anoint" Steve Huffman as the next Congressman.
At that point I was already a registered independent, as that my tipping point had been reached earlier when President Bush nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. I figured that I was giving up my privilege of voting in the Republican primary, but I didn't care at that point. The Republican Party had become the party that they ran against and defeated in 1994. I wanted no part of them at that point.
It wasn't long after that that I felt I had done the right thing. The RNC's anointing of Steve Huffman, a former state legislator, was causing us to scrutinize his record. We knew Randy Graf was a border hawk, but what about Steve Huffman? Steve Huffman was all of a sudden trying to convince us that he would be "tough" on border enforcement, but curiously enough, whenever any border issue came up in the state legislature, he was conveniently absent from the voting record! In other words, he had no track record on this issue to speak of at all!
Meantime, I had learned that according to the Arizona Revised Statutes, that I, as a declared nonpartisan, could vote in the primary of any party that wasn't closed to independent voters. I could show up at the polling station, and vote in the Democratic primary, or in the Republican primary (the Libertarian Party is closed to independents). I then realized that I could go ahead and vote for Randy Graf, although I was equally impressed with Frank Antenori. I figured (and correctly, I might add) that if Steve Huffman were to win the primary, he would run as being tough on the border, and then vote for "amnesty" once elected.
The primary vote was held in September 2006, and Randy Graf won the nomination. In other words, the voters of this district who live here rebelled against the Republican National Committee establishment. The party bosses, who had never set foot in Arizona in all their lives arrogantly decided that they knew better, and we told them otherwise.
This didn't sit well with the RNC. They retaliated against their own voters. They refused to fund the candidacy of Randy Graf, and this ultimately led to Gabrielle Giffords, the Democrat, winning election for CD8.
Should she have won?
At that time, the Republicans had 31% of the registered voters, the Democrats 27%, and the rest were either other parties or independents. This district, owned by the Republicans for 22 years, was given to the Democrats by the RNC, as retaliation for the voters here rejecting their girly-man Steve Huffman. Gabrielle Giffords won re-election again in 2008, and is up again this year.
So what are the Republicans going to do?
I guess that depends. The best known declared candidate is former state senator Jonathan Paton, who resigned his state senate seat a few months ago to formally declare for this race. The next best known candidate after that is ex-Marine Jesse Kelly. Jesse Kelly should be known to you if you've regularly visited the Drudge Report as that I've seen his ad up there numerous times. I don't see the RNC establishment backing him should he win, but I think that they just might back Paton if he wins.
Meantime, I'm still an independent, but I think I'm going to go ahead and register as a Republican for the reasons detailed in my last posting. I really don't want to do this, especially in light of the contempt that the party bosses have for the fine people of this district, but I think it's important to take McCain out sooner rather than later.
Also, there's a rumor that Sheriff Joe is going to run for governor. That's right, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County. He's the sheriff that you've been reading about for several years....the sheriff who brought the chain gangs back to Arizona, the sheriff who makes his inmates wear pink underwear and 1930s style striped prison uniforms, and who just recently is making the prisoners ride exercise bikes if they want to watch TV.
I don't see incumbent governor Jan Brewer winning reelection. She's an improvement over who we had before, but she stumbled badly in her first few months in office and I don't see her winning against Terry Goddard. The voters are angry right now, and I think they'll be even angrier in November.
* * * * * * *
Other tidbits, then I'll sign.
Things between Lynette and I are very strong, and we're making plans to visit each other's families. This means trips to San Jose and to southern Wisconsin over the next few months. I'm hoping that San Jose will happen in June, and if it does that will be a short one.....but we plan on returning there in November.
In July, we are planning to go to Wisconsin, with a side trip to Iowa since I want to see Aunt Marge and Uncle Tony. Uncle Tony is still recovering from his surgery. Aunt Marge is in excellent spirits. I really admire her; she sets an example during her adversity that I am in awe of.
The new Bachman & Turner CD is in its final stages from what I hear. I don't know if they're coming to Arizona just yet, but I'm sure they'd like to. If not, then hopefully Las Vegas, since I can get up there and enjoy a scenic drive along US93.
At work, my job responsibilities have changed. I'm no longer helping to develop circuit cards. During my last review my supervisor told me that there were some other opportunities within our group that I should consider, and after spending a weekend thinking about it I decided to pitch in and to help out a project that really needs it. I was expecting it to be temporary but I'm now on that one full time.
The best way to describe it is that I am working on what the circuit cards are actually used for. They reside in an assembly, and that assembly resides in another assembly, and it is that second level assembly that I am now working on.
I think it will be a good use of my skills.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)