|W|P|113340951588150422|W|P|Grijalva Speech|W|Pfirstname.lastname@example.orgRep. Grijalva to Discuss Iraq War at University of ArizonaTucson, AZ- Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva will speak on the current political situation in Iraq at the University of Arizona. The discussion will take place on Thursday, December 1, 2005 at 6:00 pm in Social Sciences 100. The event is sponsored by the UA's Social and Behavioral Science Department and Political Science, History and Middle Eastern Studies.
NB - The biography that I linked above gives the date of November 8th as her birthday, but I've seen today given as the birthday in other sources.|W|P|113327782367849074|W|P|Dorothy Day's Birthday|W|Pemail@example.com
The greatest care should be taken to give a warm reception to the poor and pilgrims, because it is in them above all others that Christ is welcomed. - Rule of Saint Benedict, Chapter 53
When the Son of Man comes in glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, "Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thisty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me." Then the righteous will answer him and say, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?" And the king will say to them in reply, "Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me." Then he will say to those on the left, "Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, nakes and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me." Then they will answer and say, "Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?" He will answer them, "Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me." And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. (Matthew 25:31-46)This is one of those portions of the Bible that Pat Robertson and crew has razored out. Although they'd probably happily point out that the goats are on the left and draw some poorly thought out political point from that.
I'm absolutely amazed at you boys over there, I wonder what you are going to be when you grow up.Berry went on to point out that it won't be people of his generation, but the generation of the congressman he was responding to (he was 31) that will suffer from these cuts. I usually am not into "ageist" attacks like this, but I really get steamed at the snottyness of many Republican elected officials of my generation. I'm glad that someone was willing to wipe the smug smiles off of their faces. Something interesting here: Berry is one of the Blue Dogs. You know, those Democrats that Bush said that he would work with back when he ran in 2000. It's been an undereported story, but Bush alienated these people in his first year of office. These guys have as much success working with the president as Dennis Kucinich does. Another Blue Dog is Gene Taylor of Mississippi, who lost his home in Hurricane Katrina. After a Republican attempt to gut Medicaid, supposedly to help Katrina victims, Taylor said:
This is the cruelest lie of all, that the only way you can help people who have lost everything is by hurting somebody else.I'm not justifying all of the votes that the Blue Dogs make, but those of us that consider ourselves "progressives" ought to remember that many of these folks have their hearts in the right place.|W|P|113236589512561668|W|P|Wow...My New Favorite|W|Pfirstname.lastname@example.org
Our current City Council - including Steve Leal, Fred Ronstadt and Kathleen Dunbar - helped clean up filthy camps full of bums, panhandlers in medians and overly aggressive beggars. Kathleen Dunbar's challenger would like to bring them back.
Hoffman's campaign has been overshadowed by the aggressive bantering between Aboud and Dunbar. A recent debate degenerated into material for America's Funniest Home Videos when Aboud, complaining of an amateur videographer in the crowd, began covering her face with papers while she responded to questions, while Dunbar got mad enough to threaten to sue her Democratic opponent.I wasn't at this event, so I don't know what got Dunbar so up in arms. What this shows is that this latest spate of lawsuits isn't a reaction to the Democrats being particularly nasty this time, but a habit of hers. I guess it's easier to threaten to sue than to actually respond. It would be interesting to see whether or not she contacted counsel back then. That year, she also threatened to sue a group of employees at a women's shelter who raised money for Paula Aboud. True class. What happens when she loses on election day? Does she sue 35,000 voters? For a million each?|W|P|113108287500292247|W|P|Wow, That's an Awful Lot of Money|W|Pemail@example.com
Of course, this seemed very strange. It was only "cc'd" to me, the actual recipient had a city government address. I wrote back and pointed out that other than being a precinct committeeman, I was not an elected official. I told her that my brother is, and that may be why there is confusion. I asked why there was a question about this. She wrote me back and said that there was a question from Kathleen Dunbar's office as to whether or not I could legally serve on the committee because they thought I was in the State Legislature. She also said that the staff member that e-mailed her was a bit miffed that she communicated with me. This whole matter, the staff member said, was supposed to be "discrete." Of course, the height of discretion would have been to, I don't know, check my first name. As it turns out, members of the legislature can apparently serve on city committees. They don't because few of them would want to cut out in the middle of session to hang out in a basement meeting room to discuss the number of days a grand opening banner can be up. A couple of months later, my term was almost up. I received a letter in the mail thanking me for my service and telling me that I was ineligible for re-appointment because of term limits. I thought, okay, I've been on for a while, I was even chairman for a year. I'll move on. Then, I got a call from José Ibarra, the councilmember that appointed me. He asked me if I wanted to get re-appointed. I told him that I didn't think that I could. He said, don't worry about it. Turns out, there are term limits for these city committees. But, the statute says there is an exception for "technical committees." The list of technical committees is right there, at the top is the Citizen Sign Code Committee. I found out later that the city clerk's letter was sent at the behest of someone in Dunbar's office. The thing that makes this most bizarre is that I am in the minority of most of the votes of the Sign Code Committee. There are two other "pro-neighborhood" people on the committee, but they often cannot make the meetings, meaning I can't get a second to most of my motions. What grand danger am I causing by being on the committee? Just the fact that I expressed an opinion was enough of a reason for Dunbar and her supporters (both incidents were prompted by a member of the committeee) to think that I needed to be silenced. It is amusing in some ways, given how obscure the sign code is and how low the stakes seem to be, but also frightening. NB - This incident prompted the best retraction of all time. The Tucson Weekly wrote an item in the Skinny poking fun at Dunbar for confusing me with my brother. But, they messed the names up too. The next week, the ran a correction and said, "I guess we are as stupid as Kathleen Dunbar is."|W|P|113104559650704485|W|P|A Bit More Dunbar History|W|Pfirstname.lastname@example.org
No, Ted is not an elected official, are you Ted?
The complaint is being lodged now, White said, because Eckerstrom has become increasingly "vocal and obnoxious" in the run-up to the Nov. 8 City Council election.So, in other words, there is no problem with Eckerstrom being party chair, until he irritates White. As long as Eckerstrom kept his mouth shut, she didn't care. She's mad because he is willing to fight. This, along with Dunbar's quasi-lawsuits last week, seems to be part of a pattern on the part of the Republicans. Don't speak up for candidates or issues, or we'll file charges against you. These sort of tactics should scare all of us who care about democracy. It also means that the Republicans feel like they are up against the wall. Would they be calling the lawyers if they thought they were winning?|W|P|113099237371572019|W|P|More Silly Allegations Fly|W|Pemail@example.com
This is the greatest capitulation of a president to the right wing of his own party since Franklin Roosevelt dropped Henry Wallace.I couldn't figure out a good place to fit that one in though. Wait, I just did. The incident made me think of a couple of things. Despite the split in the political leadership of the Evangelical community, I saw little evidence that there was any opposition to Miers among actual Evangelicals. To the contrary, the one poll I saw reported showed that Miers had the overwhelming support of self-identified Evangelicals. This could be because they finally had one of their own nominated to the Supreme Court. The "fight" among Christian conservatives was entirely among political figures who were jockeying for position. In some ways, this can even be seen as a defeat for them. I wrote a while back that mainstream Christians should be offended by some of the rhetoric used by Evangelicals when they were trying to build support for Miers. Some of these leaders implied that Miers didn't really find the Lord until she abandoned Catholicism. Well, guess what guys, by taking out Miers, you not only left Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court for almost an entire session, but now Bush has nominated a for real blood drinking Mary worshipper (just like me!). How does it feel to accidently eat one of your own fellas? The Washington culture seems to confuse some of these "spokespeople" with actual grass roots figures. Many of these organizations that these people represent are little more than fundraising organizations with little grassroots activity (the left is plagued with these as well). It is hard to say that someone like Gary Bauer represents any actual constituency, when his organization, American Values, seems to only solicit members opinions in a survey on his home page. This isn't to say that some of them don't have an actual following (Dr. James Dobson does, for instance), but the media gatekeepers don't seem to know how to tell the difference between a real spokesman and a political hack. Interestingly, this theme was touched on on this week's episode of the West Wing. In it, Democratic Rep. Matt Santos's staff is consumed with the threat by a pro-choice group to endorse Republican Sen. Arnold Vinick. Finally, Donna Moss points out to them that the vast majority of pro-choice voters will vote for Santos no matter what the Washington folks tell them. Sometimes these decisions are made for strategic reasons on the part of the organization or its leaders and have nothing to do with where the grassroots is. In the end, President George W. Bush could have probably gotten through a fight on Miers if she was in anyway viewed as a heavyweight. Bush called her "the best person" he could find. What does that make Sam Alito? Anyone remember Laura Bush saying that opponents of Miers were sexist? Since her husband obviously did not consider a woman this go around, does that make him sexist? Bush himself said that this was over not wanting to produce documents. The Evangelical leaders are claiming that they killed the nomination. So, are they calling the President a liar? I'm just asking.|W|P|113094277177595577|W|P|Thoughts on Miers|W|Pfirstname.lastname@example.org
"This is a well-timed smear," Gonzalez said in an interview. He said it was "really suspicious" that the issue was raised days before the Nov. 8 election."Really suspicious" that Karin Uhlich would question Dunbar's record? Isn't that what a challenger does? Gonzales seems to be acting more like a campaign spokesman rather than as an attorney working with actual leagal arguments. It is his own behavior in this that is "really suspicious." I don't buy that they are even the least bit serious about suing. If a political figure could sue everytime he or she thought bizarre allegations were being made, then Bill Clinton would be a billionare. The purpose in Gonzales's histrionics has nothing to do with the law, but to intimidate Uhlich's supporters and to change the subject from Dunbar's record on the council. I had two problems with the article. One is with the title: "Campaign Mailer Causes Ward 3 Uproar." The mailer didn't cause an uproar. Under normal circumstances, it would have just been another piece of junk mail that would have been thrown away by most voters. The uproar didn't start until Gonzales and Dunbar started talking about suing people. The other problem I have is with the tone of the article. A lot of talk about "both sides," as if sending a negative piece during a political campaign is somehow the same as having your attorney threaten campaign volunteers. I still have heard nothing from Dunbar's campaign denying the incident, mostly because she can't. You'd think that reporters and newspapers who love to cloak themselves in the First Ammendment would be a little more angry about an elected official threatening voters for exercising their freedom of speech. I find it a little disingenuous for Dunbar to be up in arms over this. She seems to think that she is beyond any criticism. Looking back at her past campaigns though, she has been plenty good at dishing out negative campaigning herself. She ran a television ad accusing candidate Paula Aboud of being a slumlord in her last campaign. She also made accusations directed at the wife of then-Rep. Andy Nichols in her unsucessful campaign for state senate in 2000. She is just frustrated to be up against a Democrat who has some fight in her. NB - I put up the billboard photo for a couple of reasons. First, any pictures of Dunbar seem to irritate a friend of mine. Second, Clear Channel has been involved in an ongoing lawsuit with the City of Tucson, and it is offensive for an incumbent councilperson to be giving them money for anything. Third, the billboard is located at 22nd and Kino. This makes it the entire Republican campaign for the Southside.|W|P|113088547419062579|W|P|Star Misses the Point|W|Pemail@example.com