While I’m not the biggest fan of the language used in the Arizona SB-1062 bill that was passed in our state legislature (for one thing, why should only religious people get protection?) but the fact is that discrimination in clientele is nothing new (or wrong) for businesses.
Thanks for that inane piece of news, Arizona Daily Star. This is shocking.
Here I was, expecting Minnesota or Tennessee to be in the running for top 3 illegal immigration prosecution states.
Except, of course, AZ Daily Star doesn’t actually give you the numbers or a link to the study and when you go to the website for the Syracuse Research Center you can’t actually look at the annual study…just month to month.
The latest numbers available (September of 2013) actually put Arizona as the 4th state in illegal immigration prosecutions (5th if you count them by district as the SRC does), but as I said in the title: No shit, Sherlock.
A little bird told me that you might not be backing down from running for your Senate seat in 2016. I’m here to ask you to please excuse yourself from the political conversation in our state.
No one likes you.
You are old, you are senile, and you sell out conservatism every chance you get.
Come out of the closet already and admit you are a Democrat, you’ll feel much better, I swear.
Or don’t, I don’t really care what you do, as long as you stop trying to pretend you represent conservative ideals.
I personally don’t think anyone could have beat Obama in 2008, but it must have been some collective delusion or some extreme blonde moment that led Republicans to choosing you as the candidate.
I hate to tell you this, but you’ve been “one of these old guys that should’ve shoved off” for a goddamn long time.
In April of this year your approval ratings in the great state of Arizona were abysmal. 67% of those polled we need someone new in office. Only 21% thought you deserved another term and your job approval rating was at the lowest it’s been in 21 years.
Stick a fork in yourself, because you are done.
Liberals are the ones defending you now and you’d rather concentrate on your poker app than on important issues of foreign policy. We didn’t send you to Washington to play games and crack jokes about after you get caught. This isn’t just your job, it’s the future of the United States. It’s shameful that you would be so irresponsible.
You think that supporting the constitution passionately makes someone a “whacko bird” and you’d rather be at dinner with Obama than representing the interests of your constituents. You’re from Arizona, a red state populated by people that don’t appreciate your attempts to sell freedom down the river in order to win brownie points with the administration.
Oh and your daughter isn’t doing your reputation any favors.
In short, please “shove off”, because I promise that I and many other fellow Arizonans will make your next campaign a huge embarrassment for you. We don’t need or want a power hungry, opportunistic, fake Republican representing our state.
Sincerely NOT yours,
Most of the State of Arizona
The race card is pulled on an almost daily basis at this point, but one of the districts (not mine, thank god) in my city is undergoing a landslide of racism at the moment. District 8 has historically been a “black district” which apparently means a white person can’t run for office there without it being tantamount to “lynching” the black community politically, according to Jarrett Maupin.
“Post-racial society” my ass.
Hey, look, the pale skin running in district 8 is a democrat and I’m not here to defend her political views, but trying to stop her from running because she’s white is the exact opposite of not being a racist. How unbelievably blind can people like Reverend Jarrett Maupin, the author of this storm of accusations toward Kate Gallego, be?
If the people in the district don’t believe that she will represent them properly, either because they don’t agree with her political views and policies or because they judge her based on raced and they don’t want a white woman in office, they will not vote her into office. That’s how elections, generally, work.
I watched the first season of The Walking Dead and I have to tell you that there was a lot of gun use in that show, they all must have been a bunch of racists. For some reason not a single person came up with the revolutionary idea of taking their group inside a house and nailing a sign to the door that said “THIS IS A ZOMBIE FREE ZONE. NO ZOMBIES ALLOWED.” Surely that would have been a much simpler way to survive the zombie apocalypse.
“That’s crazy!” I hear you cry.
Why is it crazy?
“Because zombies don’t care about rules!” you shout.
Gun free zones just don’t work.
Criminals don’t care whether someplace is a “gun free zone”. In fact, that usually leads them to go TO those places to commit crime, because they are a “soft target”.
Ann Coulter makes that point brilliantly in one of her recent Townhall articles.
You will notice that most multiple-victim shootings occur in “gun-free zones” — even within states that have concealed-carry laws: public schools, churches, Sikh temples, post offices, the movie theater where James Holmes committed mass murder, and the Portland, Ore., mall where a nut starting gunning down shoppers a few weeks ago.
Guns were banned in all these places. Mass killers may be crazy, but they’re not stupid.
So gun free zones don’t work.
It’s time to try something new when it comes to protecting our children.
Or something old, apparently Rahm Emmanuel, David Gregory, and Barack Obama consider armed guards in schools are good enough to protect their kids. Even if they think the idea is “outrageous and unsettling” when the NRA suggests it for other other schools.
That’s right, the school Rahm’s kids go to has an armed guard, Obama and Gregory send their kids to school at Sidwell Friends, which has no fewer than 11 armed guards on campus.
So why shouldn’t other kids have the same protections? Either in the form of armed guards or armed teachers. Maybe Obama thinks his kids are somehow more important than the other children in the United States. Wouldn’t really surprise me.
Leaders in my state of Arizona are working toward better protection in schools at the moment, such as Tom Horne’s plan.
Arizona’s attorney general proposed arming one principal or employee at each school to defend against attacks such as the recent Connecticut school massacre.
“The ideal solution would be to have an armed police officer in each school,” Attorney General Tom Horne said in a news release Wednesday. But budget cuts have limited the number of Arizona schools with “school resource officers” on campus, he said.
The “next best solution,” Horne said, “is to have one person in the school trained to handle firearms, to handle emergency situations, and possessing a firearm in a secure location.”
Until some sort of option of this type can be worked out, there has been a plan put forward by Sheriff Joe Arpaio (who I have met!) who has decided to send some of his volunteer posse out to guard school’s in the area.
“I have the authority to mobilize private citizens and fight crime in this county,” Arpaio said. Arpaio first started using his posse to protect malls during the holiday shopping season in 1993 in response to violent incidents in prior years. Since then he said malls where his posse members are on patrol have had zero violent re-occurrences and patrols by his all-volunteer squad during the 2012 shopping season netted a record 31 arrests. Arpaio said since the program has worked so well in malls he believes it will work just as well protecting schools. “We’re not talking about placing the posse in the schools right now but in the outlying — the perimeters of the school — to detect any criminal activity.”
Sheriff Joe gets a lot of hell from liberals for any number of his positions here in Maricopa country, from his tent city jail (making criminals uncomfortable, how kooky) to his views on illegal immigration (where he actually views illegal immigrants as criminals, shocking right?) but he keeps getting re-elected.
Someday Sheriff Joe will need to stop running for re-election and back someone new for the position of Maricopa county Sheriff, but for now I cheer him on and hope that more locales take a harder stance on protecting our children.
Neither criminals or zombies are likely to follow the rules and laws you set out. Sometimes the best protection of innocent life, is an armed guard to blow their brains out…in the zombies case. I suppose you could just shoot to wound if at all possible in the case of the criminal.
I had an interesting day today, dealing with financial aid at my university. Honestly this debacle has been weeks in the making and I won’t bore you with endless back story, I’ll try to just give you the major points.
Because of being under the age of 24 (despite having filed my taxes as a single independent for the last two years, supporting myself financially, not having insurance through my parents, and living alone for the past two years as well) for some reason the FAFSA considers me a dependent when it comes to financial aid.
My initial argument with my financial aid department revolved around the fact that, legally, FAFSA is asking me to commit fraud against the federal government, because I’m filing as an independent with the IRS (and no one wants to screw around with the IRS) but filing as a dependent for financial aid services with my school. How does this sound reasonable at all?
Finally I was told that I could submit a dependency review. Two pieces of paper from the school and 3 letters (1 from me and 2 from people not related to me) talking about my current and past relationship with my parents. To prove that I’m an independent.
So I filled out the form, I got a former teacher who I still talk with to write a letter, as well as my friend Robert. I didn’t think there would be ANY possible problem, because (aside from a short few days after I had a lumbar puncture, I haven’t lived with my parents full time (not counting vacations like Thanksgiving and Christmas when I visited) in over two years.
After being jerked around with lost paperwork and incompetent people all over the place…my file finally made it to a financial aid counselor (who I never met, because they keep their offices hidden behind locked doors and work/study peons). What happened?
It was denied.
I got a call from one of those peons I just mentioned and I refused to talk to them. I told them to find me someone who knew what they were talking about and get THEM on the phone, because I refused to ask my questions through a 3rd party and sit on hold for 10 minutes to get an unsatisfactory answer to each one.
I may have raised my voice.
But it’s the only way to get anyone on that level to pass you on to the next person. They have CREATED a system in which, the only way to talk to the people in charge, is to verbally abuse their office workers.
I got passed to a financial aid specialist. Who I argued with for 10 minutes before finding out that SHE wasn’t the woman who had looked at my dependency review either. I told her she needed to pass me to someone who had actually looked at my review and who could actually make executive decisions.
It may have taken some level of shouting and verbal abuse and threats that the college wouldn’t receive ‘ONE GODDAMN PENNY FROM ME OR ON MY BEHALF’ if someone didn’t solve the situation to my satisfaction.
I fully believe that I was channeling 2 parts Ann Coulter and 1 part my own mother at the time.
Now I’m talking to a financial aid counselor…25 minutes after the beginning of the phone call. Half of which was me being on hold, by the way.
Now we get down to the meat of the issue and the most outrageous and incomprehensible conversation I have ever had.
Gabby, full first name Gabriella, tells me that the federal government doesn’t care that I’ve supported myself financial for the past 2 years or that I don’t live with my parents or that they don’t pay for my college education at all.
Her exact words were ‘financial independence doesn’t qualify you as independent’.
Wanting to know if SHE at least knows how batshit crazy that sounds. I ask her “could you please tell me what your PERSONAL opinion this is. Please let me know that SOMEONE here understands how insane that sounds”.
No surprise that she wouldn’t give me an answer.
I ask her what WOULD qualify me as an independent. She tells me that I would need documentation from a teacher/clergy member/counselor/police officer of ‘abuse, neglect, or abandonment’.
I kindly inform her that, per federal law, since I moved out after the age of 18 and any difficulties with my parents occurred after that, that I could not legally be the victim of neglect or abandonment and that I also can’t claim abuse, because I’m over the age of 18.
She had no answer for that either.
I asked her to give me a reasoning for why I’m forced into filing as a dependent in the first place.
She told me it was because current federal law allows me to remain on my parents insurance until I’m 24 (my parent’s don’t provide me insurance, they don’t have insurance, so this doesn’t apply…something I told the financial aid department on my dependency review) so unless I’ve been abused or neglected they can’t consider me independent.
Now this next part is the part you really need to listen too.
being that I know some of the coming consequences of Obamacare, and I know that one of them is the ability to stay on your parents insurance until the age of 26, I asked the, very flustered, financial aid counselor a question that she probably didn’t mean to answer.
Me: So does that mean that next year, when Obamacare goes into effect, the age that it takes to become an ‘independent’ in the eyes of the federal government and FAFSA will be 26?
FinAid counselor: Well yes!
So there you have it, this was a long post just to get to this main point. However, I wanted people to understand the backwards thought processes these people operate under.
Live by yourself, make your own money, support yourself, haven’t relied on your parents in 2, 3, 4, years?
You’re still dependent on them.
Because the federal government is run by incompetents.
No surprise there I guess.
Also, that’s the news no one is talking about when it comes to Obamacare and financial aid. Every moment of Obama’s reign, every decision made, can be traced to one final ending.
Keep people children, keep people dependent, keep them jumping through our hoops and thinking that their only option is to be reliant on us. The more they lean on the government, the more they feel like children, the more rights they will let us take away in the name of ‘supporting them’ and ‘taking care of them’.
That’s what people are missing here. This isn’t about insurance or federal loans. This is about making us into children, with no support system. We can’t let that happen.
I mean, there are plenty of reasons to hate it. Members of our legislature can propose some nutty things (of course they rarely pass), our state university is a joke (then again, so are most state universities to my knowledge), and the heat is deplorable…unless you live in Flagstaff (liberal central), Prescott (surprisingly not as much of a liberal central, despite being an art community) or any of the other tiny little northern towns (I’m a big fan of Jerome, which is a tiny tourist trap with awesome ‘haunted’ hotels and beautiful old architecture…but also very liberal). And I live in a town that was founded by people crazy enough to put our town in a valley surrounded by mountains so that we never get rain (I love rain.)
But Arizona does have it’s good point. I know that other people (not me*) love the mild winters. This state loves their second amendment rights (Tombstone anyone? I’ve been there, if you go don’t eat at the Crystal Palace Saloon, I was sick for a week…just sayin’.) The fact that you can drive 2 hours and change climates completely is awesome and the fact that I live in a city whose founders named their town after a bird that burns to death regularly (which I usually feel like I will do in the summer) and were crazy enough to put our town in a valley surrounded by mountains so that we never get any rain. Also we don’t have Daylight Savings Time.
Also, sometimes the people are freakin’ amazing.
See, I may live in Arizona, but I’ve always been far more worried about the national political scene and I spent very little time paying attention to the local political scene** and as a result I sometimes miss stuff.
So then I see something like this on tumblr and I wonder where I was when this happened.
Joseph M. Scherzer, M.D. told the Daily Caller that he ‘plans to stop practicing before 2014 when the bill’s full impact will be felt because he refuses to deal with the headache of increased government involvement in health care.’ Perhaps he neglected to mention as well longer waiting lines, fewer doctors (as he exemplifies), cut backs in Medicare reimbursement and a myriad of other issues that will destroy doctor morale. There is a caveat to Dr. Joseph M. Scherzer’s plan to throw in the towel and he said as much on a sign taped to the front door of his office. Unless Congress or the Courts Repeal the Bill:
People like this make me love my state. We have so many bold people here that refuse to be taken in by all the BS that politicians in DC (and even our own state) try to feed us. Scherzer has a blog, by the way.
83% of Doctors have considered quitting because of Obamacare, Scherzer isn’t alone in this.
Now we just need to win the Senate, keep the House, and eject Obama from the White House.
November, here we come.
*I love to bitch about the cold, but I actually love frigid weather…especially if I can stay indoors with a fire and only venture into the snow for an hour or so at a time, but I hate having to drive 2 hours to see snow in the winter. I also hate having to wait until December to wear sweaters and jackets…and forget about coats.
**Though I firmly hold that any fuck-ups in the city of Phoenix are not my fault. I didn’t vote for Stanton. I voted for Wes Gullet.
***I’d like to note that Left Coast Rebel did an interview with Obama’s second cousin, Dr. Milton R. Wolf, M.D., who is a huge nay-sayer of Obamacare.
So there has been this thing, where, for some reason, the legislature here in my state has tried to pass several laws recently that have to do with procreation and abortion.
I will admit that I have a tendency to jump to conclusions about these sorts of laws and, partially because the topic isn’t a really big deal for me, I have a tendency to just listen to what the media is saying about a law. I generally assume that 50% of what they claim the law does is complete and utter bullshit, since that’s my default setting for news, but this time I actually started doing a little research because someone actually bothered to bring up a discrepancy in the facts when talking about the law and posted a link to the bill itself.*
The issue at hand seems to be this part of the bill.
On page eight of the proposed amendment to H.B. 2036, lawmakers lay out the “gestational age” of the child to be “calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman,” and from there, outlaws abortion “if the probable gestational age of [the] unborn child has been determined to be at least twenty weeks.”
(Don’t bother looking in the bill summary I linked to, the first “quote” doesn’t exist in the summary.)
Because of this, apparently, the state of Arizona is trying to be tricky and prevent abortion from week 18 not week 20, as the law suggests. Because two weeks makes it so much better *eye roll*
The only problem is, this isn’t some tricky language from legislators who are trying to sneak in a shorter amount of time for abortions to take place. This is how gestational age has always been calculated this way.
Gestational age, or the age of the baby, is calculated from the first day of the mother’s last menstrual period. Since the exact date of conception is almost never known, the first day of the last menstrual period is used to measure how old the baby is.
Here’s what an OB/GYN had to say on why this is how the age of the fetus is calculated.
No, it doesn’t mean that the law prohibits abortion at 18 weeks. It means 20 weeks. Pregnancy has ALWAYS been calculated from the 1rst day of the last menstrual period. Always, always, always. When we do an ultrasound, we still use that convention. Perhaps it seems odd to non-obstetrical folks, however, since the last day of the period can be inaccurate (do you use flow? spotting? one spot of blood?), as can date of ejaculation (what if you have sex 3 days in a row?), and date of ovulation (how would you know that?), and the fact that fertilization takes 24-48 hours, the 1rst date of the last menstrual period is the only accurate date. Every other state law uses the last menstrual period (as does every obstetrical textbook) because that is the way we calculate gestational age.
So, technically, when things like this are said:
“Considering that it’s anti-choice nuts we’re talking about, it’s safe to assume that they’d simply prefer a situation where all women of reproductive age are considered to be pregnant, on the grounds that they could be two weeks from now,” RH Reality Check’s Amanda Marcotte adds in a recently-penned editorial. “Better safe than sorry, especially if that mentality means you get to exert maximum control over the bodies of women of reproductive age.”
The people that Amanda Marcotte should be going after are actually the doctor’s who staff the American Pregnancy Associate or the other medical organizations that have decided that gestational age is the most fool-proof way to calculate the age of the fetus.
This isn’t “anti-choice” nuts deciding that I might as well be considered pregnant now, just because I could be 2 weeks from now. This is sound medical reasoning.
Now, do I have problems with the law? Perhaps.
Mostly I just don’t see the point. Our current state law(to my knowledge) prohibits abortions after viability, except in case of danger to the mother’s life. I don’t have a problem with that, as I’ve written about before.
So while I don’t take issue with the actual time constraints as far as the 20/18 week “conspiracy” goes…can’t our legislature find something more important to worry about?
*I’m usually quite lazy, the best way to get me interested in something is to give me to relevant links first. Other wise I just forget about it and never bother to google to topic.
Well not yet, the primaries aren’t over, but my state just gave Romney another 29 delegates and he won Michigan as well.
It’s a good night.
Thank you Arizona. You occasionally make me happy to live here.
My day could not possibly get any better.
(okay, I’m a crazy political fangirl. Getting my picture taken with a political figure is cooler than meeting an actor in my book.)
I had the good fortune to be able to attend a meeting of the ASU College Republicans this afternoon and Maricopa county Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, was the guest speaker.
He is nothing like the papers describe him, and he had more than a few comments on journalistic bias and the press in general.
He is a very funny, personable man, with an extremely “no non-sense” point of view and an awesome tie pin.
He joked a lot, took some (extremely polite) jabs at democrats, and refused to comment on “operation fast and furious” because he doesn’t like to talk badly about other law enforcement agencies.
He cares a lot about his deputies and their families and about his duty as Sheriff, to the people if his county and to the laws of our country and state.
I was amazed to hear how many years he has worked in law enforcement and how diverse his background is. He’s worked in numerous countries and spent many years protecting the Texas/Mexico border.
If I hadn’t been planning to vote for him already, I would be now.
It was a great honor to meet him and I hope that I will get to hear him speak again.