Recently, former U.S. Senator Dennis DeConcini wrote a letter to the editor of the UA's newspaper, The Daily Wildcat. The letter was in response to an op-ed expressing concern over DeConcini's involvement with CCA (Corrections Corp. of America) as a member of its board of directors. DeConcini is also a member of the Arizona Board of Regents.
In the letter, he calls the students' concerns "irresponsible journalism", and tells them to stay off his lawn. Ok, I made that last part up. He stated that, "The CCA took no role in the creation or passage of SB1070."
I'm not sure which to be offended by. The lie itself, or the insult to my intelligence. CCA, MTC, Gov. Brewer, Russel Pearce, and the glue that binds them all: ALEC, all had a great deal of input on that legislation. They were scouting areas close to the border for potential prison sites a year before anyone heard of SB1070.
DeConcini also stated that the CCA doesn't involve itself with regard to sentencing or incarceration legislation (see the beginning of the previous paragraph). This is demonstrably false. They've been lobbying for tougher sentencing laws for decades.
The concept of attaching a profit motive to the loss of anyone's liberty is something which I find abhorrent. It obviously lends itself to abuse by both the private and public sector. For the private sector, profit of course. For the government, I suspect it's kind of a tag and release program. They get your fingerprints, your DNA, and those pesky civil rights, including that of voting.
It's something that cheapens the concept of liberty itself. Society must necessarily bear a burden when taking someone's freedom. Otherwise, freedom becomes just another commodity to be bought and sold.
Over the last two decades, I've seen rights slowly and insidiously transformed into privileges granted by the state. I can see a future where those who can afford it, order items off the Bill of Rights as though it were a fast food menu.
If bearing this burden leaves a bad taste in your mouth, too bad.
If being a free society were easy, everyone would do it.
Lazy Thinking & a Risk-Free Existence
I read an article on Huffpo citing a study claiming that conservatives are lazy thinkers (calling Dr. Obvious). There was some heated discussion in the comments section as to whether conservatism caused lazy thinking, or vice versa. To me, it doesn't really matter.
My major problem with conservative policies is that they lack foresight. In my home state of Arizona, almost every piece of legislation produced by our Republican controlled legislature seems to be a reaction to some perceived threat.
My major problem with conservative policies is that they lack foresight. In my home state of Arizona, almost every piece of legislation produced by our Republican controlled legislature seems to be a reaction to some perceived threat.
Sagan's Warning
What follows is an excerpt from Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World. When I first read it, years ago, I thought he was just speculating a worst-case scenario. I was wrong. He was all too accurate.
You can see it today in the GOP's war on women, and their overt racism. You can see it in their disdain and suspicion of science and education.
When those who would hold the highest public office in America refer to colleges as "indoctrination mills", something is seriously wrong. When they confuse quantifiable, observable fact as mere opinion, it is dangerous.
They would casually discard everything we, as a people, have venerated for centuries, in favor of some twisted, corporate theocracy.
If they succeed, it won't end well for any of us. But make no mistake, it will end.
Not explaining science seems to me perverse. When you're in love, you want to tell the world. This book is a personal statement, reflecting my lifelong love affair with science. But there's another reason: science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking.
I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time - when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.
The dumbing down of America is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30-second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance. As I write, the number one video cassette rental in America is the movie Dumb and Dumber. Beavis and Butthead remains popular (and influential) with young TV viewers.
The plain lesson is that study and learning - not just of science, but of anything - are avoidable, even undesirable.
We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements - transportation, communications, and all other industries; agriculture, medicine, education, entertainment, protecting the environment; and even the key democratic institution of voting - profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.
Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
You can see it today in the GOP's war on women, and their overt racism. You can see it in their disdain and suspicion of science and education.
When those who would hold the highest public office in America refer to colleges as "indoctrination mills", something is seriously wrong. When they confuse quantifiable, observable fact as mere opinion, it is dangerous.
They would casually discard everything we, as a people, have venerated for centuries, in favor of some twisted, corporate theocracy.
If they succeed, it won't end well for any of us. But make no mistake, it will end.
Grasping the Concept
Recently, a judge in Montana, Richard Cebull forwarded a racist email that referred to President Obama, which I obviously won't repeat here. He has since apologized, saying,
His apology seems sincere enough, except that he's apologizing for how the email was perceived, rather than it's substance. Still, it's not really the point. This man's sole job is, essentially, to use good judgement. In this case (and perhaps many others), he failed to do so.
He admitted that he read the email, and knew it was racist, but decided to forward it on to some "old buddies" anyway. A part of his job description is to maintain an appearance of impartiality. To me, his failure to do so makes every one of his rulings suspect.
This isn't about free speech, as the Republican senators in his state would have you believe. He is free to have opinions, and discuss them privately. But this man holds the life and liberty of American citizens in his hands daily. To use such poor judgement precludes having a job with that kind of responsibility, and for that reason alone, he should step down.
If he can't see this, it's just another indication of his poor judgement.
"The only reason I can explain it to you is I am not a fan of our president. I didn't send it as racist, although that's what it is. I sent it out because it's anti-Obama."
His apology seems sincere enough, except that he's apologizing for how the email was perceived, rather than it's substance. Still, it's not really the point. This man's sole job is, essentially, to use good judgement. In this case (and perhaps many others), he failed to do so.
He admitted that he read the email, and knew it was racist, but decided to forward it on to some "old buddies" anyway. A part of his job description is to maintain an appearance of impartiality. To me, his failure to do so makes every one of his rulings suspect.
This isn't about free speech, as the Republican senators in his state would have you believe. He is free to have opinions, and discuss them privately. But this man holds the life and liberty of American citizens in his hands daily. To use such poor judgement precludes having a job with that kind of responsibility, and for that reason alone, he should step down.
If he can't see this, it's just another indication of his poor judgement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)