Tucson Sammy

Governor Napolitano signed into law a bill that will allow government school students to boost their AIMS test scores with good grades. This brings us back to the world as it existed before the test was a gleam in Lisa Keegan’s eye.

We are now full circle because the original problem was artificially good grades, and social promotions. Those problems persist, and now that those grades trump, or “augment”, the AIMS test score. It seems that there is no longer any hope for government schools.

This sordid story goes back to 1995 when then State Schools Superintendent, Lisa Keegan, got the ball rolling on a high school graduation test. The hope was that, by setting statewide standards, a high school diploma would indicate that the student had a basic grasp of reading, writing, and mathematics. A year later, the Board of Education set the standards, and the Arizona legislature made passing the test a requirement for graduation.

So, the government education establishment rolled up its sleeves, stepped up to the plate, and made seeing that every senior could pass the test its main goal… right?

Well, not exactly. Though the requirement was to be phased-in over a five-year period, no serious attempt at compliance was made; rather, energy was spent fighting the test. The year that the requirement was to go into effect was pushed from 2001 to 2002, then to 2006. Pressure was put on Superintendent Tom Horne in 2003 to dump the test. He refused, but promised to water it down. It was in 2006 that two advocacy groups sued to remove the test as a graduation requirement, a Superior Court Judge in Maricopa County tossed it out. Now, with Governor Napolitano’s signature, the test scores can be inflated just like the grades; in fact, using the grades, and to the same ends.

The education establishment wins, the students loose. If that is not bad enough, think of the message the educator’s example sends to the students. Imagine a guy with a shiny suit, two-tone wing tips, and a pencil thin mustache with slicked back hair approaching your kid as he leaves school. He puts his arm around your kid, leans over, and says, “Hey kid, don’t worry about all that AIMS stuff. It don’t matter. Yeah, you’ll hear them say stuff like ‘accepting the challenge’ and ‘achievement’ and all that crap, but you know that stuff’s for chumps – they can’t touch us. Do they think they can make you learn? Think you gonna be an engineer or something? Just keep doing what you’re doing, those punks will cave.”

That is just what happened, the punks caved.

However, all is not lost. While the documents were on their way to the governor, George Sanchez of the Arizona Daily Star reported that, “Tucson’s BASIS Charter School is heralded as the top public school in the United States in the new issue of Newsweek magazine.”

Charter schools, if you do not already know, are privately owned schools which contract with the state board of education, and the local school districts, to provide education services. They charge no tuition, and are paid by the state per pupil – much like the government schools, but at a lower rate, and they have no freely provided infrastructure.

I will certainly admit that the populations at the charter and government schools are different. Clearly, the charter student parent is, generally speaking, more engaged than the government parent. After all, the charter parents concern themselves with their children’s education at least, while many mouth-breathing government parents are just glad that the kids are gone for the day, and someone feeds them lunch. Parental involvement is, by far, the most important factor in a child’s educational success.

Charter schools are considered “public” schools, though they more accurately described as “government contractors”. Government contractors have long been employed to do what the government itself just can’t seem to get done internally - usually because, from top to bottom, the employees know that “the punks will cave.”

By the way, passing AIMS is a requirement for graduation at charter schools. It’s part of the contract.

 

 Losing our AIMS - audio version: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Let me start by saying that San Tan Flat is in no way connected with Tortilla Flat. There are no tee shirts that say, “Where the Hell is San Tan Flat?” Although new to Arizona, San Tan Flat has enjoyed a level of publicity unknown to Tortilla Flat.

Our story begins with a father and son, Dale and Spencer Bell. Dale has operated successful restaurants in both South Dakota and Wyoming. He and his son, Spencer, opened their new venture in Pinal County, Arizona, on the flats next to the San Tan Mountains – hence the name.

After three years of jumping through hoops, they finally opened on 2005 with Pinal County’s blessing. Shortly thereafter, Pinal County began to harass them mercilessly. They made them remove one of their two signs, reduced their road access from four entrances to one, and they made them build a bigger parking lot. They also sent deputies out at night to measure decibel levels.

This sort of behavior usually indicates that some well-connected turgid member of the community wants him out of Dodge. In the older frontier times, they usually just sent the Sheriff around to tell him, “Be out of town by sundown.” These are less direct, less honest, weenie times.

Dale complied with all the harassing demands, until they turned their sights on his customers. They claimed it was illegal for them to dance to the music in the courtyard. They cited an ordinance from 1962 that required “dance halls, penny arcades, and bowling alleys” to be in fully enclosed structures. San Tan Flat is a restaurant bar. As Dale said to me, “I’ve never seen a penny arcade in my lifetime, I’ve never been able to put a penny in a machine and have it do anything, I don’t know how old you are, but I’m an old guy…this thing is pretty obsolete even in its language.” With the help of the Arizona chapter of the Institute for Justice, Dale went to court.

The Pinal County attorneys stated, at four separate times during the initial hearing, that the supervisors thought the outdoor stage at the Country Western Saloon and Steakhouse would be used for “mimes, puppet shows, poetry readings, and art displays.” Why, of course! Any cowboy worth his salt needs a little miming, and poetry read to him every now and again. Those dang Bell Boys deceived us!

Dale has determined that upstanding member of the community Pinal County Supervisor Sandy Smith is directing the attacks against him. It is her appointee, the Pinal County Sheriff, who sends his deputies out three times a night to test the decibel levels. So far, they have had no luck.

I asked Dale why Sandy Smith was trying to make his life miserable. He answered, “Why is she doing it? Possibly petty jealousy over the success of the business, possibly because we did not grovel, or kiss her butt, which is apparently what she was expecting us to do after we were open and permitted.” He had some other ideas that involved millionaire developers, but it’s all just speculation.

The silver lining to this dark cloud is that the longer it drags on, the more support the Bells get - from George Will, who wrote of their plight in his Washington Post column, to Dale and Spencer’s customers. Dale said of his customers, “They don’t say they like it, they say they love it!”

The significance of this case lies not so much in the fact that the petty commissars of Pinal County are being exposed; rather it verifies what we in the freedom movement have come to realize over the past few years.

Traditionally, it was government at the federal level that sent edicts from far away for the great unwashed, doing away with federalism, and exceeding its limited jurisdiction in a rather tyrannical way. It seemed to make sense that when people are reduced to numbers and formulas, they would be treated like them. Now we see those close to us, here at home, behaving in similar fashion. Whether they use eminent domain, civil forfeiture, or “Smart Growth” central planning, our locals have a lust to control people, and property that they do not own.

As the bizarre case of San Tan Flat exemplifies, it is not the remoteness of the power that is corrupting. It is the power itself.

 

 Bizarre Case of San Tan Flat [5:48m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Regardless of what you think of the global war on the Western World launched by Islamic fanatics, it is important that the West prevails. It is a matter of survival. There are many fronts, hot and cold. The European theater is mostly cold - if you don’t count the rioting around Paris. In the Pacific Theater, there are the Indonesian and Philippines fronts, hot and cold in turns. In the Middle East, there ar the Afghanistan, Israel, and Iraq fronts, all hot.

The enemies of the West have learned that the have not a prayer in a stand-up fight. The Arab states surrounding Israel launched conventional wars against her repeatedly, and failed every time. Then they learned, from the North Vietnamese communists, to frame it as a “human rights” struggle for the “Palestinians”. They would get plenty of support from western leftists, and the war would be won in the streets of America and Europe. The jihadis understand this too. After all, it worked for the Vietnamese, it is working against Israel, it should work for them. That is why they keep attacking. They see how the American left is undermining the military effort, and realize that it is just a matter of time before we cut and run.

Our military is the best in the world. We are winning in Iraq. Like Vietnam, we win every battle, but the war will be decided on the streets of America and Europe. Along with the jihadis, many in our military get it. That is why a group of Iraq veterans, who came home to witness a propaganda campaign against the American military, are fighting back at home with the sword of truth. They will not stand by while the battles are being won in Iraq, and th war is being lost at home.

They are now in the middle of a nationwide tour that will culminate in an appearance before the U.S. Congress on April 8, 2008. You can go to their web site to learn more: vetsforfreedon.org

I was able to interview a few of these decorated Iraq veterans when they were in Tucson. You can listen to the interviews by clicking the podcast buttons below. If you are a Vietnam Vet, you really should listen to the interview with David Bellavia; he has something important to say to you.

 

 Interview with Pete Hegseth, Vets for Freedom [8:43m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

 

 Interview with David Bellavia, Vets for Freedom [13:53m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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