Error message

  • Notice: Undefined index: taxonomy_term in similarterms_taxonomy_node_get_terms() (line 518 of /home/westvall/public_html/sites/all/modules/similarterms/similarterms.module).
  • Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in similarterms_list() (line 221 of /home/westvall/public_html/sites/all/modules/similarterms/similarterms.module).
  • Notice: Undefined offset: 1 in similarterms_list() (line 222 of /home/westvall/public_html/sites/all/modules/similarterms/similarterms.module).

Letter to the Editor - August 19, 2014

Error message

  • Notice: Undefined index: taxonomy_term in similarterms_taxonomy_node_get_terms() (line 518 of /home/westvall/public_html/sites/all/modules/similarterms/similarterms.module).
  • Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in similarterms_list() (line 221 of /home/westvall/public_html/sites/all/modules/similarterms/similarterms.module).
  • Notice: Undefined offset: 1 in similarterms_list() (line 222 of /home/westvall/public_html/sites/all/modules/similarterms/similarterms.module).
West Valley View's picture

Conservatives got it wrong

Editor:

Four years ago, I fully supported SB1070. I believed that so called “illegals” were a harm to our state and to our country. Yet as I began to learn more about freedom and a free market I was shocked by how wrong I — and conservatives in general — were and are on the subject.

Facts I learned:

Americans are having their constitutional rights violated not only at the border, but up to one-hundred miles away from it.

Children of immigrants were less likely to use welfare than children of native born Americans.

Immigrants generally brought different skill sets than most Americans and, contrary to popular belief, actually help in lowering native unemployment than raising it.

Immigrants pay more in taxes (via payroll taxes, gas taxes, sales taxes, etc.) than they take out in welfare benefits.

Immigrants were responsible for a full 25 percent of new businesses in this country.

Immigrants are net benefit to our economy, not the major drag conservatives say they are.

Immigrants tend to boost native wages, not suppress them

Perhaps most shockingly is that almost all of the above list has been shown to be true of both legal, and illegal immigrants. So where did conservatives go wrong on this? I thought conservatism was the ideological friend of the free market? Economist Ludwig von Mises put it like this: “There cannot be the slightest doubt that migration barriers diminish the productivity of human labor.”

With all the data staring conservatives in the face how can they continue defending that which is not true? I don’t believe this defiance to be resultant of bigotry, it sadly and more likely resultant of forgetfulness: maybe conservatives have forgotten what freedom is.

Desiderio ‘Dez’ Garcia
Waddell

 

How to endorse

Editor:

I would like to commend Angela Pearson on her recent letter to the Editor. In her letter she told us how her husband, Daniel, has been preparing himself to become the next Justice of the Peace for the White Tank District. In her letter she was able to show how her husband can stand on his own merit. She did not sling any negative toward any candidate, even though negative has been thrown towards Daniel.

Instead, she stated how Daniel has completed Arizona Supreme Court small claims and civil traffic hearing officer programs, along with the Arizona Justice of the Peace Associations Judges training. He has also volunteered hundreds of hours in the Justice courts. She also mentioned what a hard worker Daniel is and how he never stops learning and striving to be better. This type of work ethic is critical in any position and is very hard to come by.

Thank you again for showing how Daniel Pearson can stand on his own merit and doesn’t have to resort to negative mudslinging to show how qualified he is.

I wish the term “clean elections” meant that candidates were not allowed to spout negatives and distort facts to make themselves look good, but to only focus on their own qualifications and what they will be able to accomplish if elected. Angela Pearson as done just that. I am sure Daniel Pearson will make a great Justice of the Peace.

I don’t know Angela personally, but I would like to thank her for setting a great example of how to endorse a candidate.

Pam Schaeffer
Goodyear

 

Aesop’s Fables to the president

Editor:

From Aesop’s Fables to the President, his Administration and both houses of Congress.

No. 112, The Wolf, The Mother, and Her Child: A hungry wolf was prowling about in search of food. By and by, attracted by the cries of a child, he came to a cottage. As he crouched beneath the window, he heard the mother say to the child, “Stop crying, do or I’ll throw you to the wolf!” Thinking she really meant what she said, he waited there a long time in the expectation of satisfying his hunger. In the evening he heard the mother with her child and saying, “If the naughty wolf comes, he shan’t get my little one. Daddy will kill him.” The wolf got up in much disgust and walked away: “As for the people in that house,” said he to himself, “you can’t believe a word they say.” Moral: Do not trust the words of your enemies.

No. 186, The Trees and the Ax: A woodman went into the forest and begged of the trees the favor of a handle for his ax. The principal trees at once agreed to so modest a request, and unhesitatingly gave him a young ash sapling, out of which he fashioned the handle he desired. No sooner had he done so than he set to work to fell the noblest trees in the wood. When they saw the use to which he was putting their gift, they cried, “Alas! Alas! We are undone, but we are ouselves to blame, The little we gave has cost us all. Had we not sacrificed the rights of the ash, we might ourselves have stood for ages.” Moral: They are foolish who give their enemies the means of destroying them.

Susan Hewitt
Goodyear

 

Civilized world should wake up

Editor:

Since my last letter, I must give our Commander-in-Chief Obama a mini-Kudo for stepping up to the plate, albeit reluctantly and timidly, to help save and protect the Christians and Yazidi’s (ancient mixture of early Christians and Muslim doctrine) refugees in Northern Iraq from the forces of the current self proclaimed Islamic State (IS), the most extreme of Jihadist movements. Because he has, to date, refused to better arm the Kurds, our only true ally in Iraq, the Kurds are forced to defend themselves with antiquated weapons against a well equipped IS army of blood thirsty Islamic Jihads bent on world conquest. Hopefully, he will soon wake up and supply them with modern weaponry to not only defend themselves but destroy and rid Iraq of these crazies without major American troops on the ground.

The civilized world must wake up and quit dancing around the chaos and murder being perpetrated by the mad fanatic Muslims in the name of religion, not mainstream Islam but a distorted version of medieval thinking, except now they are using modern weaponry and technology instead of spears and swords. One has only to remember the Nazi’s under Hitler’s madness and the 6 million Jews plus millions of others murdered, including Christians, what weakness and delay to combat such evil can result in. Also, mainstream Muslims need to speak out more forcefully against this madness instead of being intimidated by the Jihadists who have stolen their religion and have actually killed and wounded more Muslims than any other people.

The free civilized world should also support Israel’s fight of survival against Hamas terrorism as it’s first bastion of defense against this Jihadist madness.

Roy Sharp
Goodyear

 

Violence in Iraq

Editor:

The atrocities being committed by ISIS in Iraq are sickening, children being beheaded, crucifixions, women being raped while their husbands are killed, entire Christian towns being wiped out. All in the name of Allah! Please all you Muslims out there enlighten us non-Muslims if this is truly what your religion preaches. Is this what your holy Koran tells you to do? Kill all Christians, men, women, and children indiscriminately? If not, then all decent Muslims should be outraged at what is going on over there, and should be speaking out! Every holy man at every mosque around the world should be condemning this violence!

But, we don’t hear a peep from them do we?

When 1900 Palestinians are killed from Israeli airstrikes, because their terror group Hamas chooses to hide their civilians behind their missles, the Muslim world is outraged. But when 200,000 Christians in Syria and Iraq are wiped out, no outrage is heard from the Muslim world. In fact not much is heard from the media either. It seems the Muslim world doesn’t have much respect for their own civilian’s lives, and none for Christians, or non-believers. This is truly disturbing.

I say again where is the outrage from the media?? And from all decent Muslims, if there are any??

Tom Moore
Goodyear

 

Negative political ads

Editor:

Are you tired of negative attack adds clogging your mailbox, e-mail in-box, phone messages and TV adds? I am! The Chairman of the Arizona Republican Party is calling for an end of attack adds in the primary race for governor. He said that voters are “voicing disappointment with the level of negative campaigning.” He should move down the ballot and call for an end of attack adds all the way down to local elections.

The attack adds in Legislative District 13, being sent out by the three incumbents, aimed at their challengers are appalling, offensive and not true. Those adds say more about the character and integrity of those sending the material than they do about their targets. Political consultants keep telling candidates that attack adds work to win elections. If we, the voters, agree not to vote for the perpetrators and they lose the election then the strategy will be sent, where it belongs, to the discard bin.

Join me in voting against any candidate who sends you a hit piece aimed at their opponent. That may leave a lot of empty spaces on your ballot but it is worth the effort. Our mothers told us that if you can’t say something nice about someone then just don’t say anything. Great advice!

Leonard Kirschner
Litchfield Park

 

A silly pitch

Editor:

There is a strange campaign pitch from Diane Landis, who wants me to vote for her because she “owns a gun, carries a gun, can shoot a gun, and has a concealed carry permit”. Then, she hints her opponents Darin Mitchell and Steve Montenegro, may not share those same attributes. Well that’s a silly pitch. Steve Montenegro was one of the legislators who passed Arizona’s Constitutional Carry law, which gave Arizona the best gun laws in the country. Darin Mitchell wasn’t in the Legislature then, but in his first term he joined Montenegro in having 100 percent pro-2nd Amendment voting records.

Mitchell and Montenegro have “A” ratings and have been endorsed by the NRA and the Arizona Citizens Defense League. AZCDL is Arizona’s most active 2nd Amendment group at the State Capitol and they have more than 11,000 members statewide.

I’m glad Landis has a gun, but instead of running against Mitchell and Montenegro, she really ought to be thanking them and supporting them. Their votes are keeping all of our Constitutional rights protected.

Steve Migliore
Goodyear

 

Stores would thrive without tax

Editor:

In response to Mr. Warden’s sales tax.

I grew up in New Jersey. They pay no sales tax on food or clothing. Still today 2014 no sales tax. And they make a hell of a lot more in salary then Arizona. In fact New Yorkers travel to New Jersey to purchase their clothing. Just think if we eliminate the tax, other states would travel here to buy their cloths and pile up on food and our stores would thrive and not go out of business like they are now.

Sheila Slomsk
Goodyear

 

Take heed

Editor:

Now Folks, listen well!! The CIA and the President’s command will becomes Nazi SS officers and will report on Catholic and Christian church sermons. They will report if they speak out against the Government so the IRS can take away their tax status. It’s a tactic to strike fear like Nazi Germany did. I’m sure this will not include the Islamic Mosque’s. Why not there also?

They’re intrusive in our schools, and our public services. Those picketers against the Israeli war against Hamas, I’d wager they were paid to picket. President O’Bama to our shame betrayed Israel by not helping and just giving them rhetoric encouraging their enemy. Why aren’t Hama’s wives stopping their men from sacrificing their children? An American woman would use a baseball bat to knock some sense into the husband, but I suppose that’s easy to say in our culture.

When Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State, she swore an oath. A promise to uphold and protect American interest, but behind closed doors Clinton was really signing radical treaties and pursuing initiatives to surrender our Sovereignty to the United Nations and now her corruption exposed, Secretary of State John Kerry is continuing right where Hillary left off. We must defend our sovereignty. Our soldiers do not want to wear U.N. patches to service or support them. They are of little use except to funnel our money and make them selves wealthy at our expense. Wake up America we’re under attack, big money is pushing these Nazi attacks. The United Nations is seizing control of America’s natural resources. A One-World Government and global U.N. policies will destroy our freedom is what they have in mind.

Take heed! President O’Bama’s words needs to be taken with a grain of salt. “The Fisher of Men Reigns be at peace.”

Analie Maccree
Goodyear

Rate this article: 
Average: 1 (1 vote)

Comments

Gordon Posner's picture

 

Dear Patrick:

   Actually, as a kid I always thought Tuesday was the worst day of the week.  I'd lost the "adrenaline rush" from going back to school on Monday, and still had four more days to go through.  It seemed to me that bad things always happened on Tuesdays!

Dez:

Was this repeat performance worded slightly different an intentional one?

There are still comments and questions for you left unaddressed from the last time you posted this letter.

Patrick

Dez Garcia's picture

I didn't realize that my first letter would be posted. While I did feel my 2nd letter was more the way I intended, the first I thought would not be published since it was not submitted via the website form, but sent via email like I did 3 years ago. Apparently that still works . . .

So it was an accident, but I still am kinda glad this one came out.

 

eagle73's picture

Dez,

Several lines in your statements for which you have no references are cherry picked facts.  Most are explained in context from The Center of Immigration Studies by Steven A Camarota, PhD who is the director of research.  This was prepared for a Senate commitee:

 

When considering the economics of immigration, there are three related but distinct issues that should not be confused. First, immigration makes the U.S. economy (GDP) larger. However, by itself a larger economy is not a benefit to native-born Americans. Though the immigrants themselves benefit, there is no body of research indicating that immigration substantially increases the per-capita GDP or income of natives.

Second, there is the fiscal impact — taxes paid by immigrants minus the costs they create for government. There is general agreement that less-educated, lower-income immigrants are a net fiscal drain; and more-educated, higher-income immigrants are a net fiscal benefit.

Third, there is immigration's effect on the wages and employment opportunities of native-born workers. Basic economic theory predicts that immigration should create a net gain for natives, but to do so it redistributes income from workers in competition with immigrants to workers not in competition and to owners of capital. Theory also predicts that the size of the net gain will be tiny relative to the size of the economy and the size of the redistribution. Because the least educated and poorest Americans are the most likely to be in competition with immigrants, they tend to be the biggest losers from immigration.

Putting aside economic theory, the last 13 years have witnessed an extraordinary situation in the U.S. labor market — all of the employment gains have gone to immigrant workers. This is extremely puzzling since the native-born account for about two-thirds of the growth in the working-age population, and should therefore have received roughly two-thirds of the employment growth. Even before the Great Recession, a disproportionate share of employment gains went to immigrants even though natives account for most of the increase in the working-age population.

eagle73's picture

Dez,

I am a bit confused looking back at your letter.  You are seemingly talking about immigrants.  I was thinking you had changed your mind about illegal immigrants or undocumented immigrants if you prefer.

Steve

Gordon Posner's picture

 

Dear Steve:

   Without disputing your Comment (that's for Dez to do, since you're replying to his Letter), I do want to caution that one should consider the source for your quotation.  The Center for Immigration Studies is a "politically conservative non-profit research organization that advocates immigration reduction in the United States".  Furthermore, "Media reports have questioned the accuracy of its factual assertions and its claim to nonpartisanship and noted its ties to extremist groups."

   Of course, since my source is Wikipedia, the same rule applies.  Take what both say with a grain of salt.

eagle73's picture

Gordon,

Just what I was getting at about which "facts" does one use to make a "reasoned" conclusion..  He once believed the conservative beliefs and now he does not.  Just what did he read that turned him to reason otherwise? (Rhetorical, not a question for you).  The list he gave is suspect as facts from what I've seen.  Of course what I've see although very prevalent may have bunk in it also.  Who really knows?

Steve

Gordon Posner's picture

 

Dear Steve:

   No, that's not a rhetorical question, it's just one that Dez should answer.  (It's a very good question.)

   And I realize you weren't directing the question at me.

Dez Garcia's picture

Oh also see the works of Dr. Antony Davies of Duqesne University and Dr Ben Powell of Suffolk University.

Dr. Powell has some excellent short videos as well as a few lectures on the subject.

Gordon Posner's picture

 

Dear Dez:

   Thank you.  It's always good to have new sources of information (even if I don't agree with what they say).

    I'm going to add these articles to my personal Archive, though I can't promise when I'll actually get around to reading them!

;-)

Gordon Posner's picture

 

Dear Dez:

   If you're interested in looking at the issue from the other side of the problem, here's an article you might find of interest:

The Logistical Nightmare of Sending 57,000 Immigrant Kids Home

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-24/deporting-57-000-immigra...

Gordon Posner's picture

 

   Oh, and here's the link to that article you didn't provide one for (Economic Impacts of Immigration: A Survey):

http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/09-013_15702a45-fbc3-44d7...

Excellent, Susan Hewitt!

Gordon Posner's picture

 

Dear Judy:

   Big surprise!  We disagree.  Ms. Hewitt misusing those stories.

   First, one can argue with the "moral" she draws.  (Although, to be fair, people tend to draw different morals from all of Aesop's Fables.)

   Second, one can certainly question her application of those stories to the President.  I don't see any sign of him "trusting the words" of his enemies.  (Unless we include the Republicans he's foolishly trusted on many occasions.)  I mean, it's not like he "looked on Putin's soul" and decided we could trust and work with the guy.  Nor do I recall him ever giving "our enemies the means of" destroying us.  (Unless you count all the armaments we lost in Iraq because of the invasion and occupation by you-know-who.)

   But, in keeping with Aesop, allow me to offer a fable in return, No. 133: The Dog and its Reflection:

It happened that a Dog had gotten a piece of meat and was carrying it home in his mouth to eat it in peace. Now on his way home he had to cross a plank lying across a running brook.

As he crossed the brook, he looked down and saw his reflection in the water beneath. Thinking it was another dog with another piece of meat, he made up his mind to have that also.

He made a snap at the reflection in the water, but as he opened his mouth the piece of meat fell out, dropped into the water and was never seen again.

   My version of the moral?  Those who grasp at illusions (like you and Ms. Hewitt) end up with nothing.

Gordon,

Or, maybe to Republicans she was referring to the words of the President when he said, "if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-...

Or when the President said the health care mandate was not a tax.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-in-2009-its-not-a-tax/blogEntry?id=...'s%2520a%2520penalty%2520not%2520a%2520tax%26ei%3DLxv0U8y3N9G6ogTeu4JI%26usg%3DAFQjCNHF30bEI16e6PUYxcie3egjPhEG0A%26sig2%3D3ioAXxHpv9SLLmq4jLvjCg%26bvm%3Dbv.73373277%2Cd.cGU

Or later when the President said, "what we said was you can keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law passed,"

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/nov/06/barack-ob...

Or when the President said, "If you're one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance,"

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/29/barack-ob...

Shall I continue?

Patrick

Gordon Posner's picture

 

Dear Patrick:

   If you read her Letter in context, it's clear she wasn't.  Both fables were addressed to not only the President, but also to "both houses of Congress".

   So, who exactly are the "enemies" referred to in the moral of the first fable?  I suppose it must include the House Republicans and the many promises they've broken over the years, the many claims they've made about their intentions (such as working on Immigration Reform piece-by-piece this year) which turned out to be incorrect.

   And I don't see how what you wrote even relates to the second fable.  (Though, again, it could be a warning to the President and Senate Democrats to stop giving Republicans "the means of destroying them".

   As for those links you provided, we've done this dance before.  Most of that criticism is based on what the President intended to do (before his proposals went through the "meat grinder" that is Congress).  Not exactly the same thing as the first fable.

   (However, I'll consider addressing this more fully another time.)

   Nice try, but no dice.

Gordon:

Actually, if anyone's try is "dicey," it is yours.

You may believe those lies are what the President "intended," but others believe that is a load of hogwash.

His lie afterwards about what he said he said, was clearly bunk.

My Republicans to the President is no more right or wrong than your President to Republicans was.

But in CONTEXT, I read her letter to mean, for example, don't trust Iran regarding their nuclear ambitions, etc.

As far as Republicans not delivering on their promises, how exactly do you know that some of the 350+ House passed bills (mostly bipartisan according to Boehner) that are buried on Harry Reid's desk (the Congressional black hole of doom for House bills) aren't delivered promises?

Patrick

Patrick got it right and you got it wrong, Gordon. Obama is the family and the woodman. It is us (the American people) who are the wolf and the trees.

"Do not trust the words of your enemies" refers to the false promises Obama made to get elected and re-elected--which would have proven to be contradictory to his personal history and life philosophies had he been properly vetted by Democrats and the media--and his actions as President during his first term. (examples: criticism of GW's use of executive power--which turned out to be far less than his own, GW's "unpatriotic" contribution to the national debt--which, again, pales in comparison to his own, an affordable national healthcare system, a transparent administration, reduce the VA's backlog and make it "a leader of national healthcare reform", et al)

"They are foolish who give their enemies the means of destroying them" refers to those who voted for Obama a second time after he'd already proven to be an enemy of the state. (examples: unabashed corruption within his administration--Fast and Furious, NSA, Benghazi, VA, Census Bureau, HHS, EPA, et al).

Further, while Obama promised to heal the wounds of racism and bring the country together, he has actually stoked the fires of racial tension on occasion by inserting himself into circumstances that should have remained locally-handled and nationally-observed. (examples: the misunderstanding between Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates and Cambridge, MA police Sgt. James Crowley, the Trayvon Martin incident and most recently, the dispatching of Eric Holder to Ferguson, MO)

His failure on this issue is particularly difficult to understand since he has DNA from both races.

Judy,

Is it not interesting that the Ferguson situation is all about politics, the tactics of Eric Holder and Barack Obama. They are bent on wiping out the Republican Party as their goal is not limited to promoting racism but, establishing a one party ruling system. Eric Holder reminds us that the United States of America remains an unfair and unjust country and therefore, needs a fundamentally transformational change. Using the tactics of Joseph Goebbels they have convinced many Americans that the GOP is a racist organization.

“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over” Joseph Goebbels

Thomas

Gordon Posner's picture

 

Dear Thomas:

   It's funny how ideologues falsely accuse others of what they're guilty of themselves.  (That's true, by the way, whether they are of the "left" or the "right".)  I mean, it's not like you, Judy, or the Republicans haven't played the "race card" almost every chance you get!  Heck, some based almost their entire careers on it!  (Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, etc.)

   And of course, everything was just "fine and dandy" in Ferguson before the President got involved.  There were no protests (or riots) over the Brown shooting.  There was no long building resentment over a Police Department with only four Black officers in it (6% of the force), when the town was majority Black (68%).

http://abcnews.go.com/US/ferguson-police-departments-race-relations-spot...

   (One wonders how "conservatives" would react if the situation was ever reversed, and they had to live with a majority Black Police force?  Of course, there are plenty of "conservatives" who find even one Black President too many.)

   Then, of course, there's the "minor" matter of the Timeline.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/14/michael-brown-fergu...

   The Brown shooting took place on Saturday, August 9th.  Riots started the next day.  The following Monday the Police start getting death threats.  By 8pm the Police are using tear gas on protestors.  On Tuesday the FAA restricts flights over Ferguson (to give the space to law enforcement helicopters).

   And then, at 4pm, the President releases the following statement:

The death of Michael Brown is heartbreaking, and Michelle and I send our deepest condolences to his family and his community at this very difficult time. . . .

I know the events of the past few days have prompted strong passions, . . . but as details unfold, I urge everyone in Ferguson, Missouri, and across the country, to remember this young man through reflection and understanding. We should comfort each other and talk with one another in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds.

Along with our prayers, that's what Michael and his family, and our broader American community, deserve.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2014/08/12/obama-michael-brown/139...

   Golly, how dare the man issue such obviously "political" remarks?  He should have simply supported the Police, proclaimed there was nothing about the shooting to be concerned about, and then gone on to lecture us about "outside agitators", "nattering nabobs of nihilism", or how it's all the fault of those "Un-American Progressives"!

   Yup, until he made that "political" statement, everything was just peachy-keen in Ferguson!

   Keep telling your Big Lie over and over, just don't expect me (or any rational person interested in truth) to swallow it.

P.S. - And I almost forgot to mention they hypocrisy factor!  It wasn't that long ago "your side" was jumping up and down with faux outrage over the President's failure to go look at the Texas Border.  (Not that there was much he could have done from there anyway.)  But how dare he speak a few words urging calm and prayers as Ferguson burned?  Maybe he should have played a fiddle instead!

 

Gordon Posner's picture

 

Dear Thomas:

   So, you say the President's involvement in the town of Ferguson (limited as it is), was because he's "bent on wiping out the Republican Party", in this case by "promoting racism".

   Aside from the fact that the timeline I just referenced shows there was plenty of racial tension there before the President got involved, there are a few other facts you might want to consider.

   First, the Governor of Missouri (who's been far more involved) is a Democrat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Nixon

   Second, the Prosecuting Attorney for the County that Ferguson is in (and who the local population wants to recuse himself from investigating the shooting, for fear he's biased in favor of the police) is also a Democrat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_P._McCulloch_%28prosecutor%29

   Third, while it's true the Mayor of Ferguson is a Republican, it also appears that partisan labels don't appear on the ballot.  (I can't find out what party the City Council is composed of.)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/19/ferguson-mayor-jame...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/08/15/how-fergus...

   And it's not as if race wasn't an issue (or problem) there before the President's involvement.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/17/us/ferguson-mo-complex-racial-history-...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/in-ferguson-stop-the...

   So, there seems to be a paucity of facts to support your accusations.  But then, the Big Lie technique wouldn't have that name if it bothered with facts.

Gordon Posner's picture

 

Dear Thomas:

   It looks like you can't even open the Arizona Republic without seeing further evidence of politicians using race against Republicans.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told The Arizona Republic . . . . unrest in Ferguson stems from a lack of economic opportunity, racial disparity in the police force "and the incitement by some elements that are obviously criminal."

www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2014/08/20/police-combat-gear...

   Oh, wait, that's an example of race being used by a Republican!

   My mistake.

Gordon Posner's picture

 

Dear Thomas:

   It's even worse than you thought.  Those dastardly members of the Obama Administration are trying to "wipe out" Republicans by getting the Executive Director of Missouri's G.O.P. to make abysmally insane remarks condemning a voter registration drive!

   Because, of course, it would be so much better if the Black majority just used their "Second Amendment Rights" to solve the problem of having an almost "lily-white" police force, and a White town government.  Let's have a second "Battle of Athens"!  After all, at least one "gun rights supporter" on these pages thought that was a good way to deal with abusive local government.  (Remember? June 14, 2013) And isn't that what the G.O.P. and the N.R.A. love to say the Amendment's for?

http://www.azcentral.com/story/ejmontini/2014/08/19/ferguson-national-ri...

   Funny how you don't hear that rhetoric on the "right" when it's Blacks who are complaining about the government.

   But this is all part of Obama's "sinister plot" to destroy the G.O.P., after all.

I for one am glad for the government intervention in the Ferguson situation.

Things there have gotten out of control. It is the government's job to protect the people and businesses, and if local or state governments can't do it, the federal one can.

Nobody knows what really went down. There are two sides of this story and the truth lies somewhere in between.

I wish everyone would cool down and wait for the official investigation to conclude before jumping to conclusions and or race-baiting.

There are real people who have been seriously impacted by this tragedy, both families, and they are suffering more each day with people jumping to conclusions, spouting hurtful things, resorting to violence, etc.

Patrick

Gordon Posner's picture

 

Dear Patrick:

 

AMEN!

Gordon Posner's picture

 

Dear Judy:

   Here's a fable for you.

A little girl, with no concept of what she was doing or saying, decided to go outside and throw mud at her neighbor's house.  She never hit the mark, but she kept doing it all day.

When she went back inside, her mother was furious.  "You're covered in mud!"  She yelled.  "Go take a shower immediately!"

   Moral: people who spend all their time throwing mud, only get themselves dirty.

P.S. - For the rest of your nonsense, please see my reply to Patrick.  The same arguments apply, especially about how we've done this dance before!  You're wrong about Benghazi (etc.), and you continue to be wrong.  (But since I still owe you that response to the Texas Right to Life pack of lies about Bush's Death Panel Law you put so much stock in, forgive me if I don't address this at greater length again.)

Stick to law, Gordon, your fable was boring.

You're entitled to your opinion, but remember what Confucius says..."He who laughs last, laughs best." And yes, I realize it could take years before I get that last laugh, but I'm patient.

Gordon Posner's picture

 

Dear Judy:

   So are yours.  (They are also tiresome, irrelevant, "inaccurate", and devoid of merit.)  But that doesn't stop you, so why should I stop?

Gordon Posner's picture

 

   If by "laughing", you mean "rejoicing when Obama leaves office", then it will be approximately two years and five months!

   Meanwhile, you might want to take a look at what's happening with your "beloved's" legacy.

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2014/06/19/a-libertarian-view-of-the-ir...

http://archive.azcentral.com/insiders/robertrobb/2013/11/01/did-obama-lo...

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/graham-greene-unquiet-ca...

   And remember, these are conservatives speaking!

   If I were the kind to crow or laugh at the political failures of others, I'm be rolling on the floor right now.  But it's too serious a matter for such childish conduct, and History has yet to have the last word.

 

Resurrecting Aesop: Fables Lawyers Should Remember by Mike Papantino (April 1, 2000)...lol on April Fool's Day

Available in hardcover online for $18.80

It says lawyers are the type that can benefit from Aesop's fable wisdom.

eagle73's picture

Gordon,

I thought you would respond to some of the "newer" comments on the 8th.  Oh well.

Steve

 

Steve,

Are you referring to your REUP comment?

Patrick

eagle73's picture

Patrick,

Yes and several others, by others too.

Steve

Gordon Posner's picture

 

Dear Steve:

   I already have responded to some (go back and look in prior issues), and I'll get to more another time.  I do have a life, you know!

eagle73's picture

Gordon,

I'm glad you have a life.  You have spent hours and hours answering other days comments.  Seems a bit fishy counselor.angel

Steve

Dez Garcia's picture

I probably should've posted my response on this page instead, oh well. I'm an addict to the "reply" button.

Here is my resposne to your questions:

http://www.westvalleyview.com/comment/2719#comment-2719

Gordon Posner's picture

 

Note - this is a response to a Comment in the April 12th issue: http://www.westvalleyview.com/comment/2719#comment-2719

 

Dear Dez:

   Frankly, I think that in practical terms Anocracy vs. Anarchy is a distinction without a difference.

   Anocracy is "is a regime-type where power is not vested in public institutions but spread amongst elite groups who are constantly competing with each other for power." (Source: Wikipedia).  While Anarchy can mean several things, including "a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority".  (Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy )

   Frankly, for people suffering under either system, there's not much to choose between them.

   As for the problems with government, well, it all depends on the government in question, doesn't it?  Henry the Eighth was a ruthless despot,  his daughter (Elizabeth) was an enlightened ruler, whose reign many regard as England's "Golden Age".  Remember that nothing works perfectly (especially not things humans create or operate), but (on balance) I think we're generally better off with government than without.

   That's the whole point of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan.  Without government we exist in a State of Nature where everyone has to fight against everyone else (in a war of "all against all") simply to preserve whatever they have.  That's the start of what's known as the Social Contract theory of government, whose most famous expression can be found in a little document known as the Declaration of Independence!  (Here we go again.)

That to secure those rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

   Absolute governments (such as monarchies or dictatorships) can of course "secure" our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (after a fashion), by protecting us from crime and natural disasters.  But they can also destroy those things because they act without the consent of the governed.  Democracies (and Republics) can do the job too, more safely for our rights, because they have both power and the consent of the governed.  Best of all are constitutional democracies (or republics) where certain powers are denied to the government, and the rest must be exercised with the consent of the governed (expressed through elections).  That, of course, is our system.

   Without government, who would protect you from criminals, enforce your contractual rights, preserve the property you own, make sure your garbage is safely disposed of, and make sure the water your drink, plus the air you breathe, isn't toxic!  I doubt an Anarchy or Anocracy can do it.

   And sorry, but there's even a proper role for the government in "defending us from ourselves".  Building codes insure our homes are safe to live in.  (Otherwise, they'd still be burning down from aluminum wiring - for example.)  Requiring seatbelts and airbags have certainly saved lives.  (A very legitimate role for government.)

   Of course, governments can do stupid things too.  The proposed ban on "super-sized" soda cups at fast-food restaurants is one prime example.  Others would argue the "war on drugs" is another.  (I'm taking no position on the issue because I don't want to be drawn into that debate.)

   But to take a position opposed to all government, or even just regulations meant to "protect us from ourselves", is a case of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater!"

P.S. - You do realize that the "government interest" in restricting abortions is the same one as the interest for such regulations: it has an interest in protecting human life, even potential human life.  Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1971) at page 163:

We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, . . . , and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113

   Sometimes government does this in a sensible fashion (seatbelts), sometimes not (limiting the size of our soda cups).

Dez Garcia's picture

As I stated before I am not an Anarchist, nor even what one might call a Voluntaryist, but I am amicable and do concede to certain points that they make in regards to an overly-eager state.

I will admit I am no fan of Hobbes. The idea that if there were no government, then all mankind would be in a constant state of chaos is not entirely true. If we woke up tomorrow morning and realized that our government had collapsed would that mean I would instantly go next door and rob or harm my neighbor? Is the only thing stopping me from doing the right thing the fact that I'd be punished by the state for it? Of course not! I think the majority of society would behave in this manner. It is not respect for the state that creates stability, but respect of the individual. We may have many ways of applying this (religion, faith, spirituality, moral code, etc.) none of which comes from the existence of the state.

Which brings me to the lunacy of the idea of a social contract. I signed no such contract. You cannot be held to a contract merely by your birth or by your residence. The Declaration of Independence is not stating that men need such "social contracts" but rather that governments can only remain legitimate so long as their constituency continues to consent. It is not a limitation on individuals, but on governments.

Also what entails consenting to be governed? I can't afford to move anywhere, is it thus by my poverty that I consent to be governed since I can't move to [insert country of choice here]? Is it because I voted in the last election? I didn't vote for Mitt Romney and I didn't vote for Obama. Is it because I participated that I consent to be governed? Even if I had voted for Obama did I consent to the NSA director or to their domestic spying program? The vast majority of Americans don't vote, yet are they still consenting? Or is it that I don't start a revolution and begin an armed revolt against the government? I would obviously be put down quite quickly, so is the only way to refuse to be governed dying with guns-a-blazing? Suddenly the idea becomes a little more muddled, doesn't it?

Anyway that's my problem with the idea of a "social contract."

As far as what governments are good for: sure protection from criminals may be a part of it. Although perhaps your legal insight into some of the relatively recent court cases of police being under no consitutional duty to protect us (even in the case of restraining orders) has me troubled somewhat.

Enforcing contracts: sure. I would have no problem with this if the powers that be (both left and right) didn't constantly pass laws giving their donors more and more authority and favor in regards to contractual law.

Building codes being safer isn't necessarily protecting us from ourselves but rather making sure the person we hired fulfilled their contractual obligation to build a safe home, so I'm not quite sure how this applies to "protecting us from ourselves." Unless you mean the guy who wants to add the man-cave annex and has to go through ungodly amounts of paperwork and submission fees.

If I choose not to buckle my seatbelt, isn't it my own fault? Sure the case can be made for a parent who won't do it for their child being held liable, but I as an individual being an idiot? My choice, my fault. So long as I'm not harming someone else. This is how I take smoking or the drug war. If I am not causing harm to another individual, leave it be.

You and I agree on certain legitimate roles for governments, but most people think or assume there are only a few dozen federal agencies, yet when you look at all the independent agencies that answer to those agencies (or sub-agencies if you will) and government owned corporations then that number grows exponentially into the clearly-only-created-because-it-got-you-money-for-an-election.

Dez, 

I responded to part of this comment in the next edition:

http://www.westvalleyview.com/comment/2817#comment-2817

Patrick

Where is Gordon when you need expect him to chime in? Guess I'll have to do his dirty work...

Would you care to provide some sources for your claims, Mr. Garcia? From what I've read, you're wrong about a lot of what you wrote.

Judy,

A sure fire way to get Gordon to chime in would be if you explained to Dez how all these laws he is complaining about besides selected parts of SB1070, that restrict our freedoms, are created by Dems.

Then after insulting you and throwing some facts around that debunk your claim that ALL these laws were created by Dems, he'll be geared up to chime in on the other stuff.

:Patrick

eagle73's picture

He may be diligently working on all comments.  It takes a long time to get his verbosements out you know.

Gordon Posner's picture

 

Dear Steve:

   Once again, you are the master of understatement!

;-)

Gordon Posner's picture

 

Dear Patrick:

   Last I checked all of SB1070 was a Republican production, not just "selected parts".

   Since, aside from Immigration, Dez didn't specify any other laws he disagrees with, I can hardly "debunk" your claim that "Dems" created them.

   However, let's look at least one body of law that "conservatives" object to (along with most everyone else): the "Infernal" Revenue Code.

   The current Code is an amalgam of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, and the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code

   Eisenhower (a Republican) signed the former, Reagan (guess which party he belonged to) signed the latter.

   Republicans controlled the Congress in 1954.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/83rd_United_States_Congress

   They controlled the Senate in 1986, but the Democrats controlled the House.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99th_United_States_Congress

   But I'm pretty sure "conservatives" prefer to give Democrats no credit for creating the second Reagan Tax Cuts!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986

  Does that "ring your chimes"?

  

Gordon:

You completely misread the comment.

Patrick

Gordon Posner's picture

 

Dear Patrick:

   Which part, and in what way?  You did after all write that I'd respond to the claim blaming Democrats for creating <i>all</i> laws "that restrict our freedoms", so (since I didn't know which ones Dez or Judy were or would refer to), I just picked a <i>prime</i> example of a law "conservatives" and Republicans love to bash (along with everyone else).  I could always have chosen the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.  That one had Republican fingerprints all over it!

   Besides, it turns out you were mistaken.  I "chimed" in entirely without "prompting" by anyone.  (I just didn't get "here" until after the rest of you had "chimed in".)

Gordon:

Try reading it again with the proper context.

Steve and Judy got what I was saying.

Patrick

Pages