A Sighting of the Rare and Elusive Boltgirl

It's the annual family confab in Tucson, which has left my calendar a bloody mess when viewed from a distance--gotta switch from red ink to a more soothing blue--and my blog neglected in the corner, sniffling. What can I fling at you as I sprint by the computer between rounds of cards, grilling, and backyard birdwatching fueled by high-quality merlot and shiraz?

Meat! Meaty meaty meat meat. I have been a vegetarian off and on for the past twenty years or so, but right now am definitely peaking in the meat quadrant of the graph. Costco sells lovely slabs of top round that grill to tender perfection, which you might not expect from something with "round" in the title, but damn. Damn. I like to cover one slab with a rub of equal parts brown sugar, black pepper, hot ground roasted red chili, and garlic powder, with a half part of kosher salt and let it think about it for a few hours before hitting the grill, and then do the other with simple salt and pepper. And then some lovely thick rounds of onion around the edges until they caramelize. Nom. The grill is getting a workout this week.

Economy! I'm sorry, but at this point I am utterly confused. US auto execs are getting fired by the White House on the same day banking execs are invited over for tea? Meanwhile, my friends and I are coordinating those Costco runs for days when Tucson is not being invaded by family members who gleefully pick up the tab. Recommended bargain of the week: giant clamshell pack of Cherubs grape tomatoes, $4.49. That gives you a week's worth of salads, pastas, omelettes, and lovely snacks. A little olive oil, some basil, salt, and pepper, and bam smacky, you're eating like the king of your very own tomato patch.

Gardening! I suck at it. I know people who very successfully grow tomatoes and peppers and thus avoid that portion of Costco, but I am not one of them. High and subsequently dashed hopes in the past have included tomatoes, jalapenos, anaheim chiles, squash, red bell peppers, lettuce, and snow peas. This season I stuck to herbs and have managed to keep sage and mint alive; the cilantro, to my great chagrin, collapsed and died within three days. Oh, wait--I have had marginal success with potatoes, and am currently sitting on a harvest store of four yukon golds ranging in size from small grape to golf ball with a thyroid problem.

Basketball! My brackets are dead in both men's and women's, although I still have the Heels alive for the men's championship and UConn for the well, duh category in the women's. And the Irish rolled over and died in the NIT semis. That is all.

Arizona! Our esteemed Governor Jan Brewer (R-Harpytown) appointed the illustrious and beloved-by-Shakesville Mr. Benjamin H. Grumbles as head of the state Department of Environmental Quality, which is something akin to appointing a hyena as head of kitten welfare. Grumbles is a Bush EPA hack whose major accomplishment at the EPA was being concerned about pharmaceuticals in groundwater. Well, he was actually only concerned about nitroglycerin, and then only because it's an explosive. Anti-depressants and anti-inflammatories are apparently okay because--let's be honest here--they're making you feel better, aren't they?

Baseball! Pima County wants to build another stadium in hopes that maybe they can lure like three teams back from Glendale to Save Spring Training in Tucson, which will only cost about $137 million in a state that is shuttering state parks and firing teachers as fast as it can in order to fill exactly two sandbags that can be stacked up in front of the 75-foot tsunami that is the current $3 BILLION budget deficit. But it is important to soak people with an increased sales tax so that they can build a stadium that may or may not be used for an entire month every year if the teams decide to relocate to the cotton fields of Marana before bolting to the next sweet deal being offered by a municipality someplace else. Arizona: 49th in education, 2nd in teen pregancy rates, numero uno in short-sighted stupidity.

More to come! Later!

Go Irish

Now that John D'Arcy has weighed in on Notre Dame's invitation to President Obama to give the commencement address, old home week is complete here in Boltland. First, the bishop's statement explaining what has his ecclesiastical shorts in a knot when he contemplates Obama striding beneath the shadow of the Golden Dome:

While claiming to separate politics from science, he has in fact separated science from ethics and has brought the American government, for the first time in history, into supporting direct destruction of innocent human life.

For the first time! In history! D'Arcy seems to have forgotten about prior little government-sponsored dustups like the Sioux extermination program and, oh, maybe Hiroshima--lord knows I can barely remember those myself given my busy schedule these days--as well as about the fact that Notre Dame has previously hosted both Condi Rice and W himself. Maybe casual capital punishment and wanton warmongering don't count as life-extermination any more?

My personal brushes with D'Arcy came shortly after he landed in South Bend as the new bishop in the spring of 1985, imported from Boston to replace an oldster whose name completely escapes me at the moment and likely to ensure the primacy of some old-school conservatism in the diocese. One of his first churchly duties there was to preside over my confirmation ceremony, where he proceeded to warn us that our friends are really evil, awful people who will persuade us to do bad things, so we should ignore them and remember that our trust should really belong to the church. 25 years later I still have the friends but have quite happily shed the church. And D'Arcy's still in South Bend spouting twisted half-truths to whatever audience he has left.

Enjoy your boycott, John!

PSA

Life has been annoyingly busy in too many consecutive little blocks of time. Please check back soon.

Final Tweet

What could be more self-important than tweeting on Twitter? Probably announcing that you're leaving Twitter. So! I am done with Twitter, and of course it wasn't for truly egregious violations of decorum like members of Congress tweeting during Obama's address to the joint session. It is because the WPS (We Pimp Skorts?) announced they are considering having players tweet from the sidelines during games. And with this insult to the integrity of the game--hot on the heels of the skort--I can no longer be party to the nefarious technology behind it, no matter how inept I was at the Twitter to begin with.

If you must have hourly updates on my very important life, you'll have to find me on Facebook, which is rapidly devolving into an even more vapid, content-free forum than it already was. Sort of a Twitter-plus. Bye, Twitter!

Madness

It's my second-favorite holiday, the opening day of the NCAA men's/women's basketball tournament season, which on the BoltLiturgicalCalendar falls in importance right after Thanksgiving and right before Christmas and the Super Bowl, which are tied. I intend to gorge on hoops--thank you CBS and NCAA, for your NCAA^® March Madness^® on Demand player--even if I'm too old to gorge on beer and snackies the entire time. If I were still 24 it would be nachos and Labatt's all damn day.

My Final Four is UNC, Pitt, Louisville, Memphis. Heels win the championship over Louiville, 73-70.

Footnote to the Abortion-Restriction Discussion

I just came across this over at Shakesville, and while I fully understand that "anecdote" does not equal "data," the story is an important perspective for anyone who has ever argued that a woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy should carry it to term and give the baby up for adoption rather than aborting the embryo. As much as anti-choicers harp on the inevitable psychological damage to women who choose to abort, and as willing as they are to trot out women who've aborted and regretted it, the voices of women who have chosen adoption do seem to be curiously lacking.

I have given a baby up for adoption, and I have had an abortion, and while anecdotes are not evidence, I can assert that abortions may or may not cause depression - it certainly did not in me, apart from briefly mourning the path not taken - but adoption? That is an entirely different matter. I don't doubt that there are women who were fine after adoption, and there is emphatically nothing wrong with that or with them; but I want to point out that if we're going to have a seemingly neverending discussion about the sorrow and remorse caused by abortion, then it is about goddamn time that we hear from birth mothers too.

Believe me when I say that of the two choices, it was adoption that nearly destroyed me - and it never ends.

This is just one woman's story, but it's compelling and worth a read.

More on the Arizona Abortion Bill: Tiny Conversations with Steve Farley

Steve Farley (D-28th) is the representative for my Arizona state congressional district. I e-mailed him after the Frank Antenori kerfuffle for his side of the Arizona Health & Human Services Committee hearing on HB 2564, which was introduced to further place restrictions and impediments in the paths of women seeking not only abortion but also emergency and other contraception in the state. He was kind enough to respond the same day and provided a little more information than I'd had before.

Steve doesn't sit on the HHS committee, so he wasn't present at the hearing the Democrats and their healthcare-providing allies decided to walk out of last month, nor did he discuss the strategy with them prior to the meeting. He suspects the intention was to prevent giving the Republicans a bigger platform than they were already going to have for what by many accounts was a predetermined outcome. He also provided a link to the debate over the bill and the amendment he offered when it came to a floor vote so that, as he said, I would be able to form my own opinion of it rather than simply getting his, and would be able to quote participants directly. The Farley amendment would have exempted women who are the victims of sexual assault (of both the incestual and non-incestual varieties) from the waiting period and doctor's script-reading requirement, and would have eliminated the pharmacist conscience clause for emergency and conventional contraception.

Dr. Matt Heinz's (D-27th) testimony in favor of the Farley amendment focused on the language in the bill defining pregnancy as beginning with conception, as well as on the conscience clause. It served up a simply stated bit of scientific information for people who believe that pregnancy starts at conception. Unfortunately, it's not clear that anyone who believes otherwise and had already decided to vote for the bill was listening.

As a medical professional myself, I'm very concerned, first of all that we're discussing this at all. But as the bill is written at this time it appears to actually redefine some accepted medical terminology, which is something I believe we should try to avoid as the Legislature. What I’m referring to in particular, which I’ll begin with, is a viable, clinically diagnosable pregnancy. Now, I understand that the bill defines this as the union of a sperm and ovum. However, fertilization, as I hope everyone knows, occurs at the ends of the fallopian tubes, which are attached to the uterus—forgive me for not bringing my uterus model—and that’s not where a pregnancy occurs or even could be defined necessarily as a viable intrauterine pregnancy. That [pregnancy] is where the ovum, the conceptus, that has been fertilized travels through the fallopian tubes, which takes seven to twelve days, and then there’s implantation in the endometrium, in the wall and lining of the uterus, and blood vessels supply the developing embryo in that situation, and that—that is what a pregnancy is, a clinically diagnosable, viable pregnancy. So I’m a little bit unclear as to what we’re trying to do with that language.

Next, I’m very concerned about how, um, about how this bill is going to affect the provision of healthcare, especially to women… Pharmacists being allowed to refuse any sort of medication ordered by a licensed physician is very disturbing to me, especially in regards to emergency contraception, where there’s not exactly a lot of time available for the patient to go to another place. There’s also no requirement that I see in the bill that says that the pharmacist who is refusing for moral reasons or for a conscience has to refer the women to somewhere where they can obtain this urgently needed medical attention or device or prescription. So I don’t like that at all.

And I do believe this is beyond the pharmacist’s scope of practice because then, again in this bill, the way things are defined even with the Barto amendment, it is unclear to me if this could also possibly prohibit certain other types of hormonal therapy which may not be used for birth control at all, to control excessive uterine or vaginal bleeding. A pharmacist should not be authorized to refuse these medications when prescribed by an appropriate licensed physician.

Nancy Barto--one of the original sponsors of the bill--came up with a rebuttal on the conscience issue that is a work of art, if by "art" we mean "flinging every can of paint I can find at the canvas in hopes something will stick."

The fact of the matter is that emergency contraception is not hard to get these days. In fact, it’s available over the counter. And it’s available online, there are websites to deliver it. You can get it through the mail. And so this does not deal with emergency contraception availability. This merely protects the right of conscience. If you have an opportunity to go, to receive emergency contraception, shouldn’t an ab- a pharmacist have an opportunity to keep his job and protect his faith, live by his faith and belief? Both rights are important. This bill makes sure those rights are protected.

Jesus. One more time! If you have the opportunity to go request a legal and necessary medication from the only middleman licensed and authorized to dispense it to you within the timeframe required for the medication to be effective, shouldn't that middleman have the opportunity to refuse to perform his job, at no risk to his continued employment? I'm not sure which is more disturbing to me--that Rep. Barto considers both of those "opportunities" to be "rights"--guess which of the two does not really fit into the "rights" category--or that she can say with a straight face that the bill protects the rights of women to obtain something that is legal.

Because despite her statement that both rights are important, it's only the rights of certain pharmacists that are really being protected here. And while emergency contraception is indeed "available over the counter," which simply means "without a prescription," if it were really as easy to lay hands on EC as on peanut M&Ms, then pharmacists wouldn't be its gatekeepers and their consciences would not be at issue either way. The simple fact that Barto's fighting to give some pharmacists the ability to bar all women from obtaining the medication is the proof that the only way to buy the stuff in a store is through a transaction with a pharmacist. You can't get it from the lady at the cosmetics counter or the guy in the liquor department. Yes, you can have EC delivered through the mail if you order it online, but good luck having it show up on your doorstep within your 72-hour window of opportunity (and remember that the further your timer ticks away from hour one toward hour 72, the chances of it working drop off precipitously, because if you ovulate before you can take the pill, you're screwed again). No computer or internet access? Too bad, so sad--but you can always comfort yourself with the knowledge that you've at least kept your pharmacist's delicate sensibilities from being injured.

As an interesting side note, Steve pointed out in his e-mail that the House Republicans had promised smart-as-a-whip Assistant Minority Leader Kyrsten Sinema (D-15th) that they wouldn't bring the bill to a floor vote until she was back from an overseas trip. And as soon as she was gone they hustled it to the floor because, Steve says, "they did not want her brilliant strategic mind to get in the way of their show." This is the same group that illegally shut off a Democrat's microphone to stop a filibuster that was intended to kill the no-gay-marriage constitutional amendment before it could come to a vote. They later admitted they broke the rules on that one, but hey, it was officially too late to do anything about it. It isn't too late to hammer your state senator now with arguments against this piece of crap bill.

Notes from All Over

I have lost the ability to properly capitalize in title case. Should "all" be capitalized up there? It's a mystery to me.

Too much Guadalajara Grill may actually be a bad thing. I woke up at roughly 2 this morning with a knot in my gut and spent the rest of the night and early morning kept from my rest by a combination of pain induced by far too much hot fresh chips/fresh wonderful salsa customized tableside by Betty/three kinds of enchiladas (chili verde FTW!)/giant mug of Dos XX/the rest of the flan my girlfriend's ex-sister-in-law and niece couldn't finish and the fear that my brain will forever associate this gastric misery with Guadalajara and perhaps all Mexican food, preventing me from ever going back, and the dog being so unsettled by extra people staying in the house and doors that are usually left open being shut and doors that are usually shut being left open that she needed to walk around click-clacking on the Pergo all fucking night long. Pinche Guadalajara and their heaps of delicious food I am apparently no longer accustomed to sucking down in such quantities!

Gym? What gym? My left shoulder no longer wishes to participate in activities involving hefting heavy things over my head, which is going to impact my workout life considerably. Cardio room? What cardio room?

AIG funneled millions and millions of bailout dollars to foreign banks and their own executive bonuses? I have moved beyond each of these revelations being a fresh shock; now they've become a series of ever-dulling thwacks on the same bruise. When the bailees start using the cash to refinance underwater mortgages and cut executive compensation, then I'll be surprised.

Obama's cuddling up to a moderately diverse group of spiritual advisers whose two things in common are (1) Jesus and (2) not liking Teh Gay? Same AIG-style bruise, different leg. At least we got the Ledbetter Act signed and stem cell research back. Sigh.

And finally, I sent off an e-mail to Steve Farley (D-Tucson) over the weekend to ask for his take on the abortion bill hearing. Have not heard back yet, but his office has probably been open for all of 30 minutes so far this morning, so I will wait patiently.

Frank Antenori Speaks

This is a followup to yesterday's post about Arizona's new abortion-restricting bill that passed the state House, and Representative Frank Antenori's (R-not Tucson) memorable contribution to the annals of clueless paternalism.

To his credit, Rep. Antenori did call my co-worker back yesterday afternoon and they ended up talking for about 40 minutes. In a nutshell, our man Frank says he's not opposed to abortion and is simply trying to do the right thing based on the information that is available to him.

First, he discussed the nuts and bolts of HB 2564 and the process leading to Tuesday's vote. The initial House Health and Human Services Committee hearing on the bill in February was boycotted by Democrats, and, according to Rep. Antenori, a contingent of Planned Parenthood reps and other pro-choice allies walked out of the hearing without presenting their testimony. This left all of the testimony to anti-choice activists and pro-conscience-clause doctors and pharmacists, and their positions wound up being strongly reflected in the final language of the bill. House Democrats and, as far as I can tell, Planned Parenthood refused to participate because they view any abortion restrictions as unacceptable.

They (Antenori and my colleague) went back and forth on the proposed waiting period and mandated speech from the doctor. Antenori maintains that he is supporting the bill only because he wants the full range of information on the risks and benefits and availability of abortion, adoption, and social services to be available. As for the waiting period, he pointed out to my colleague that the state of Arizona gives car buyers a 72-hour period to change their minds and return the car, and requires a 72-hour waiting period before a woman who has chosen to give up her newborn for adoption can finalize it (safe haven dropoffs excluded, I suppose).

Antenori countered with an anecdote related at the HHS hearing about a woman who got pregnant and decided on an abortion when her boyfriend told her he did not want either the baby or a continued relationship with her and offered to pay. Because there was no waiting period, she had the abortion right away (she apparently lives in the mythical Republican land where women see the blue line on the stick, get the bad news from the boyfriend, and sprint to a drive-thru clinic for the abortion all in one eight-hour-day), and of course the next day the boyfriend said he'd changed his mind and wanted the baby and wanted to marry her and live happily ever after, so for want of a 24-hour-waiting period, a potential happy family was destroyed.

Some responses from me, after discussing the conversation with my friend... I am torn on Democrats and Planned Parenthood boycotting the HHS hearing. While I fully share their position that none of the proposed restrictions are acceptable (and in fact will only serve as stepping stones to a full ban), the refusal to take any part in the process, even if only to formally lodge our myriad detractions and rebuttals in the record, feels counterproductive to me and certainly felt that way to Rep. Antenori. Would it ultimately have made a difference in the final bill that came out of committee? I can't answer that. Antenori says he was open to and eager for all testimony in order to make informed decisions about the bill's provisions and language. Whether he is lying through his teeth about this is somewhat immaterial--our side can't claim we are being ignored and marginalized on this one if our chosen and self-appointed representatives never offered up anything to be ignored in the first place.

As far as his access to information argument goes, the full range of information is indeed out there and provided by places like Planned Parenthood. If Antenori is truly concerned with full disclosure, he should write a provision into the bill shutting down "crisis pregnancy centers" that pump women with patently false and slanted statements like abortion being riskier than full-term pregnancy and delivery, or abortion causing cancer, or abortion guaranteeing sterility and possibly suicide.

In response to Antenori's protests that Arizona gives you three days to change your mind on giving your baby up for adoption--or on keeping that new Hummer--my friend pointed out that there is a very real difference between a baby you've carried to term, given birth to, and then looked at and probably held in your arms and an 8-week embryo you have no intention of keeping in your body. She let him know that it's pretty disingenuous for a party that decries the nanny state to laud the government for trying to insulate people from the consequences of making decisions, which, as far as she can tell, is a big part of being a grownup in this country.

The best angle on the waiting period is perfectly illustrated by the story of the regretted abortion when the boyfriend changed his mind after the fact. Although it was intended to show why waiting periods are justified, it really demonstrates that waiting period proponents still place the agency for the decision outside the woman and make it contingent on the man's actions. The crux of the matter wasn't that the woman changed her mind--it was that the boyfriend did. And it was his attitude and promise of action/inaction that conditioned the woman's choice.

Finally, when we come to the main reason for my friend's call in the first place, the tidbit that's raised so much ire toward Antenori personally--his statement that the legislature has the duty to protect their wives and daughters from making decisions they may come to regret--he really didn't get it at first. He stated that he does support abortion rights, and in fact would support his wife or his daughter if they felt they needed to end a pregnancy. He just wants to be involved in the decision-making process. He doesn't understand the vitriol directed at his "duty to protect" because...

He thought he was being chivalrous.

His words.

And "I thought I was being chivalrous" perfectly encapsulates one of the fundamental misunderstandings--or at least inadvertent barriers to cooperation--we have with one segment of the voting bloc that would enact restrictions on a procedure that they don't even really disagree with in the first place. Claiming chivalry acknowledges an implicit imbalance of power, a structure in which members of the superior class occasionally deign to be champions of the powerless. Unfortunately, those champions tend to fight those battles on their own terms and toward their own ends, for what they define as their wards' benefit rather than for the ends those wards might have chosen for themselves if they had any say in the matter. Women do not need chivalry and its attendant self-appointed male guardians of female virtue. Simply put, we need equal agency to men and the ability to make decisions without anyone's input unless we request it.

So while I'm not convinced that Antenori actually gets it now, he's clearly open to conversation and possibly even an evolving opinion. If he's your representative, it's time to flood his office not with snark but reasoned arguments, because I think he'll at least think about them. It's also time to ask Planned Parenthood and the Democrats to stick around for the debate next time instead of assuming the opposition is monolithic and choosing theatre over the legislative process. Let's lean on the state senators, since they're our last chance at upending the bill in its current shitty state.

Arizona House Decides Women Don't Have Brains in Those Pretty Little Heads, Approves Abortion Restrictions

Hoo boy. The Arizona legislature happily slapped reproductive rights further back toward the 1950s yesterday with a 36-18 vote approving HB 2564. If you're a female with functioning ovaries and uterus in Arizona, this is the world you woke up to this morning:

HB 2564 would require a 24-hour waiting period before a woman could terminate a pregnancy. During that time, the woman would have to be told "the probable anatomical and physiological characteristics" of the unborn child at that point.

The bill also requires that the woman be told, in person, that:

• The father of the child is liable for support, even if he agreed to pay for the abortion.

• Medical assistance benefits may be available for prenatal care, childbirth and postnatal care if they decided against an abortion.

• Public and private agencies can assist the woman before and after the birth, whether she chooses to keep the child or put it up for adoption.

Your baby has fingernails! The father will pay child support for 18 years, and if you're lucky he'll even do it voluntarily from day one instead of the state having to chase him to Louisiana to garnish his wages! Medical assistance benefits may be available if you don't have insurance! Public agencies can assist you, even though the state is working overtime to cut every bit of health & human services spending out of the budget that we can! Did we mention your baby has fingernails and can silently sing the ABC song along with you inside your womb?

Democrats in the house were left to state the obvious things the rest of us were screaming as we read the article.

"The requirement of a mandated lecture and a 24-hour reflective period is not only insulting but assumes that women do not adequately think through their abortion decisions, and that the state must do their thinking for them," said Rep. Olivia Cajero Bedford, D-Tucson.

Rep. Ed Ableser, D-Tempe, said the help promised by the law doesn't exist because lawmakers have cut funding for many of these programs."We're passing a bill demanding health-care professionals to lie to these women and say that there are services available," he said.

Rep. Steve Farley, D-Tucson, complained no other medical procedure requires a 24-hour waiting period, including vasectomies and tubal ligations, which end a person's ability to have children.

Silly Democrats, with your assumptions of female agency and your... your... logic! House Republicans rebutted in the expected way, with Nancy "people in rural areas are accustomed to traveling long distances for services" Barto serving as the warmup act.

But Rep. Nancy Barto, R-Phoenix, said the waiting period and the information are necessary. "Women need to know the nature and purpose of a proposed treatment or procedure; the risks and benefits, alternatives, regardless of their cost or health-insurance coverage; the risks and benefits of the alternative treatment or procedure; and the risks and benefits of not receiving a treatment or procedure," she said.

As if women seeking an abortion have not already thought about it long and hard for exactly as many days or weeks as their periods have been late. As if they are unaware it's an embryo lurking in there rather than an orange or possibly a lemur. Leave it to Frank "don't call me a Tucsonan; they're all hippies there" Antenori (R-Tucson), though, to lay bare exactly what this is all about:

Rep. Frank Antenori, R-Tucson, said there is "a duty to protect either our wives or our daughters from making decisions that may come back to haunt them further down the road in their lives."

Aaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnd we have a winner! It's breathtaking. Republican men must protect their wives and daughters--and everyone else's too while they're at it--from making decisions that may come back to haunt them. Where was Frank Antenori 24 years ago when I was trying to decide between Northwestern and Notre Dame? I still kinda wonder if I made the right choice there, so that probably counts as haunting. And when I chose to major in anthropology? Jesus, talk about a life-altering decision! If only Frank Antenori had been there to point out I was guaranteeing myself the ability to be present throughout my son's childhood but would be left really scraping for money to send him to college, maybe I wouldn't be haunted by all this debt today.

The bottom line, Frank, whether you're in Phoenix (or Tucson, actually) or Chicago or Saxapahaw or Morgantown is that facing difficult decisions and then living with the consequences are part and parcel of adulthood. Even if you happen to be female. You can echo Anthony Kennedy's paternalistic concern trolling about delicate female sensibilities and down-the-road regrets all you want, but it does nothing to change the fact that we all make choices that we wish we could change 10 year, 20 years, 50 years later. Some women have an abortion and regret it. Some don't. Some decide to keep the baby and wish they hadn't. Some do and rejoice in it. It's called the human experience, Frank, and I suspect you know that very well but think dressing up your desire to control women in old "think of the children!" clothes that have been gussied up with a few bows that wail "think of the ladies!" will somehow make your policies more palatable. News flash: half of us have been blinded with rage at your paternalism, and the rest of us who've managed to keep one eye clear can still see right through you.

The bill also contains provisions that allow pharmacists and healthcare workers not only to refuse emergency contraception to rape victims, but also to refuse to tell said victims where they might find "healthcare" providers whose heads are not up their asses. It also mandates that all abortions be performed by MDs rather than NPs and PAs with specialized training, further reducing the number of abortion providers in the state and disproportionately impacting rural areas where docs are scarce and NPs/PAs provide the bulk of the care.

It ain't law yet, but it's heading to a state senate in which 12 of the 30 senators have already signed on as sponsors, and a governor's pen wielded by a woman who is no longer Janet Napolitano (epic vetoer of abortion restrictions) but instead is Jan Brewer (epic supporter of making all abortions illegal all the time). Life in the Republican Duchy of Arizona. It's a dry heat, but it burns just the same.

Note: Are you an Arizona female facing a difficult decision you might regret later? Frank Antenori is here to help! Since he clearly wants to protect you from the burden of regret and possibly even simple buyer's remorse, I'm sure he won't mind consulting on any choices you have to make, whether it's about abortion, college choice, career moves, who to pick for the Final Four, or what to have on the pizza tonight! Just don't remind him he lives in Tucson!

Frank Antenori, R-not Tucson: (602)926-5683 (phone) | (602)417-3147 (fax) | fantenori@azleg.gov

Haven't We been Here Before?

Another day, another *headdesk* moment from the peeps in charge of Tucson's fourth consecutive decade of attempted downtown revitalization.

About 50 people got a close look at a preliminary architectural design for a Downtown convention center hotel Monday night. The architects detailed their plans, including their goal to break ground this fall. Imagine a 25-story, 525-room hotel shaped like a deck of cards — narrow on the east and west and broad on the south and north.

In other words, a slab. The hotel and old convention center new arena on this plot of land er, make it this plot of land ok, really now, this plot of land as far west of actual downtown as you can go before hitting the freeway nebulous additional project to be finalized later are the newest proposed centerpiece of Tucson's snakebit Rio Nuevo project, which was initiated with much fanfare several years ago and has generated tens of millions of dollars from special tax districts and state grants that have since largely been consumed by planning process after planning process, with very little material gains to show for it.

Historical note: downtown Tucson was plenty vitalized back in the day, until the nationwide wave of urban renewal in the '60s hit it and bulldozed its most vital components--you know, houses where people lived and shops where they bought their groceries and dry goods and restaurants and bars and dance halls where they entertained themselves--in favor of a sprawling cement convention center that draws crowds to sporadic concerts and meetings but otherwise has rendered Downtown deader than a doornail after 5 pm most days.

So since then the city fathers have been trying to figure out how to draw people and their dollars back to an area that's been reduced to a couple of streets' worth of shuttered storefronts interspersed with a handful of stalwart and legendary outposts of culture like Hotel Congress, the Rialto, Grill, Chicago Store, Hydra, and Wig-o-Rama. Rio Nuevo handed them a giant pile of cash and opportunity, and they came up with a lot of ideas. Some okay, some... not so much. Since downtown is plopped atop a piece of ground that has seen not only the original townsite but also several incarnations of settlement including a US Army outpost, a Spanish presidio and mission complex, and Native American villages stretching back four thousand years, and since the city saw no problem in the 1950s with demolishing all the remaining surface ruins in the area in favor of a landfill, some historic reconstruction was proposed. You know, rebuild the Convento, replant the mission gardens with the same species of flowers and fruit trees the Spanish priests brought with them, set up a little mercado with stands selling food and crafts. So far so good, right? Then came the next round of ideas.

The aquarium. Ahem. The Sonoran Something Aquarium. Because when you think Tucson, you automatically think water and fish, no? Then came the Rainbow Bridge, which was supposed to be some bizarre suspension bridge over the interstate that was going to hold the University of Arizona Science Center and be an iconic bit of architecture on par with the Eiffel Tower. I shit you not. Part of the justification for this bazillion-dollar, K'Nex-set-on-crack edifice that would look like it dropped out of nowhere in particular to squat over the highway and menace the cars was that nobody liked the Eiffel Tower either when it was first designed, but that didn't stop Paris from becoming a world-class city, conveniently ignoring the fact that Paris had already been a world-class city for a few centuries before the tower was built and sort of absorbed it and brought it along for the ride rather than the other way around.

Both the aquarium and the bridge were abandoned as being too expensive, after quite a bit of money was spent developing the ideas. The bridge was particularly amusing because it started out with a big price tag, and within a few months of the drawings and computer renderings being circulated to the papers, the architect cleared his throat and said it would actually cost maybe two or three times his original estimate. Undaunted, the Rio Nuevo planners continued casting about for that central attraction that would bring people downtown and settled on their perennial favorite idea they just can't shake themselves loose from: The Arena.

We have an arena already, the tired 5,000-seat smelly concrete box that's the centerpiece of the aforementioned Tucson Convention Center, and which hosts U of A club hockey games in the winter and occasional concerts. Downtown revitalization people kick around renovating that arena from time to time, but usually come back to the conclusion that it's not big enough to bother renovating. Because what we need is a big arena! A big 12,000-seat arena, or maybe 20,000 seats if the U of A would just commit to playing a couple of basketball games there, which they have steadfastly refused to do for the past 20 years or however long the city's been trying to convince them to say yes. So Rio Nuevo had to jump on this bandwagon as well, and started with the concept of an arena shaped like a desert tortoise. That promised to cost too much, so they backed it down to a generic arena shape, then it became a generic arena on a parcel of ground a little farther away from downtown than originally hoped after the first land deal fell through, and now this land deal looks like it's souring too, so they're fixing to settle on a parcel even farther away, crammed up against the interstate.

And they continue to completely miss the point. Instead of casting about for the building they can tout as the destination that will draw people downtown--the aquarium, the science center, the arena, the hotel--they need to realize that downtown itself needs to be the destination. A hotel--even a hotel shaped like a deck of cards--does not inspire me to go downtown if I, you know, already live here and have someplace to stay. An arena? With what in it? Another minor-league hockey team that will last a season and then fold (the last one actually folded before its season even began)? An Icecats team that draws about 1,000 fans on good nights, which total maybe 15 nights a year? Even if they get the hockey team (which they won't) or the arena football team (also mentioned as a possibility, possibly by people who didn't notice that the Arena Football League folded earlier this year) and could lure some bigger name acts from the reservation casino's ampitheatre, how does an arena on the very edge of downtown draw people there who don't have tickets, or during days and nights when nothing's booked? Hey, let's go look at the arena! Which does not look like a tortoise! Okay, now what?

Rio Nuevo people, please look north toward Flagstaff. Hell, you can even look at Mesa if all those damn hippies make you nervous. Flagstaff's downtown works because downtown itself is the draw. People don't go there because of an empty arena or a giant hotel they won't stay at or a convention center holding meetings they weren't invited to. They aren't drawn there by an aquarium they'll pay admission fees for once but aren't interested in seeing again for another year, or by a science center they can admire from the outside but can't see inside without a ticket. They go downtown in Flagstaff because of the variety it offers and the easy access to all of it by foot. Heritage Square is an attractive central open space that usually has live music on weekends and some weeknights, and it is surrounded by blocks of cafes, bars, coffee shops, galleries, restaurants, boutiques, bakeries, you name it. It isn't just wannabe hipsters hanging on the sidewalk outside Congress or older folks nervously dodging the homeless guys by Pancho Villa's statue on their way to the Fox Theatre before it closes again. You don't need a specific reason to go there, and even if you have one, you have plenty of options for sticking around afterwards.

My advice to the Rio Nuevo planners? Forget about renovating the King Apartments into the planned mixed residential/retail use and just bulldoze the block they sit on. Build a frickin' square--you know, the one you kind of envision when you see the facades of the Ronstadt Transit Center, right before you realize it's just a giant bus parking lot--and put retail spaces around its edges, leaving it open to Congress Street and Toole Avenue so it can naturally draw foot traffic from (and direct foot traffic to) both Hotel Congress/the Rialto and the historic train depot. A new market/cafe just opened in there, but it's going to be strangled by downtown's current layout where the few thriving businesses are islands unto themselves, separated from each other by big stretches of bleak. Then pray that the Fourth Avenue underpass re-opens on time, and do some serious landscaping to make it a vital artery connecting the Avenue with Downtown in a cohesive whole. And then go back to Jim Counts on your knees and beg him to open his brewery down there someplace that makes sense, say, in that nice new plaza you need to build.

Buildings are just buildings. If you want life, you need to create entire spaces and let little reasons to live take root in them. The buildings that follow will make a lot more sense that way.

And Finally Tonight, Cheesus.

Homer wants us to eschew Facebook and Twitter and come back to our blogs and tell stories. Stories will be forthcoming as soon as I have half an hour to spare, honest, but until then, we have Jesus. Apparently everywhere. Please do your monitor a favor and set your drinks aside.



Hat tip to who else? Top!Secret G-woman rocks.

Maddow on Prop 8 Hearings

I could try to explain it, or I could sit back and let Rachel do it. Here, let me think about that for all of two seconds.

In Which Jan Brewer Does Something That Does Not Piss Us Off

Newsflash! Arizona's harpy-in-chief, new Governor Jan Brewer, is showing signs that she may just possibly have a brain that occasionally functions independently of the Arizona State Legislature's Republican caucus. Faced with an umpteen kazillion dollar deficit, Brewer addressed the legislature yesterday and told them they're going to have to consider a temporary tax hike to make up about a billion dollars of Arizona's looming shortfall. Her Republican colleagues responded in a disappointing, if utterly predictable, manner.

Brewer, a former state lawmaker, said it's the Legislature's job to work out the details of both the tax plan and the $1 billion in cuts. And they have no plans to let her idea move ahead.

"She proposes, we dispose. That's how it works," said Senate President Bob Burns, R-Peoria.

I suppose that's how it works when "it" means "ideological obstructionism at all costs," but right now, Arizona really really needs "it" to mean "rational legislative responses to our impending financial meltdown." And as much as I loathe Brewer's uber-conservative position on social issues, I have to give her credit for recognizing exactly how shitty the situation is and that clinging to a false Reaganesque mantra of taxcuttaxcuttaxcut will do exactly jack and squat to fix anything:

"I think we have some denial on the right that they are not, nor do they want, to accept the fact that we are in a financial crisis and that they are going to have to step up and make some tough decisions," Brewer said. "Sometimes one feels that they can just cut and cut and cut. Well, I think we know we have to do some cutting. But that's not going to solve the problem."

Of course, she's offered no details on what form a tax hike might take, and is still looking for an additional billion dollars in spending cuts--and a temporary exemption from state laws requiring funding in targeted areas. About the only tax increase Republicans might support is a jump in the sales tax, which will be opposed by Democratic legislators because it disproportionately impacts poor people. As discussed last week, the corporate property tax could be reinstated, but the Republicans will block that from happening. Maybe the only consolation here is that Brewer will get a taste of what life was like for Janet Napolitano when she had to deal with a hostile legislature day in and day out. Will there be a material consolation for Arizona? Stay tuned.

The Crux of the Problem

There's my way of looking at the world--which I suspect many of you share--and there's the Rushophile way of looking at the world. Guess which perspective is represented by this letter to the editor in this morning's Daily Star:

I applaud Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl for taking a stand against President Obama's $787 billion stimulus package. This bill is simply the beginning of Obama's plan to "socialize" this country even more than it already is.

Universal health care, a cap and trade energy system and a college education for everyone are a few of his pet projects that will finally put this country in the same nanny-state league as the European Union.

Does this country really want more government intervention into our lives?

Quelle horreur! Healthcare for everyone! College educations for everyone! Breathing air that's not saturated with sulfur dioxide! These are the hallmarks of stinking commie Europe this Tucson retiree is most afraid of? It's the equivalent of despising puppies because they occasionally crap on your antique Persian rug and defending your aversion with the ironclad argument that puppies are cute and smell good and give you unconditional love. In a word, you come off as a nutter.

I have yet to hear the average guy on the street who's railing against socialism give a cogent explanation of (1) what socialism is, (2) the degree to which Obama's policies coincide with that definition, and (3) how what Republicans deride as "socialism" is any more socialistic than existing US institutions and policies such as, oh, Social Security, public schools, the FDIC, and Big 3 bailouts. If you want free-market capitalism and social libertarianism completely unfettered by governmental regulation or financial backing, well, let me introduce you to a lovely little burg called Mogadishu. I'd prefer to be in one of your horrific nanny states where people have access to doctors and teachers even if they don't have the biggest pile of money or the most guns.

Look Out, Illinois. The Mormons are Coming.

Not content with their status as the majority donors to the anti-gay state constitutional amendment efforts in California and Arizona or the majority consumers of porn in the US, the Latter-Day Saints now have the Land of Lincoln--and its proposed civil-union legalizing legislation--in their sights.

The Civil Union Bill (HB 2234) has been scheduled for a hearing in the Youth and Family Committee this week on Thursday, March 5, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. in Springfield. If the bill is voted out of committee, it becomes eligible for a vote before the full Illinois House of Representatives.

This bill will legalize civil unions in the state of Illinois, and will treat such civil unions with the same legal obligations, responsibilities, protections and benefits as are afforded within marriage. In other words, civil unions will be different in name only from marriage.

To help defeat this bill, please call your state representative and state senator and ask that they support traditional marriage and vote against the civil unions bill.

I find it very odd that the LDS decided to go on the anti-gay offensive yet again after being so indignant at the outrage they spurred by their California Prop 8 meddling. Why, people called them bigots--bigots!--just because they very strongly suggested that their followers should pour millions of dollars into an out-of-state political campaign that had no direct bearing on their lives, and then initially lied about the enormous scale of their involvement with the Yes on 8 campaign. Oh, the huffing and puffing. And now they're gearing up to do the same thing all over again, after insisting that it's only about marriage, only about that sacred word, not about unions or other packages of civil rights protection not bearing that trademarked title.

The upside? They didn't leave themselves a lot of time on this latest call to action. The downside? They left us even less time to yank back the shades and let sunlight spill onto what they're trying to do. If you live in Illinois or know someone who does, it's time to spring into action.

You can debate whether Mormons are really Christians elsewhere--they have "Jesus Christ" on their letterhead, which is plenty for me, no matter how *ahem* improbable the rest of their additions to the fairy tale are--but I'd like the howling that Christians are being persecuted in the US to stop right now, please. I'm not mobilizing legions of gay people to badger the Utah state legislature to rescind any civil rights currently enjoyed by Mormons there. I would like them to similarly stay out of the business of my home state and the fair-minded peeps there--both straight and gay--who take that whole equal rights under the law thing seriously.

As usual, plenty more is available at Pam's House Blend, Box Turtle Bulletin, and Kos.

Happy Tom Day

Today is Tom Gerencher's birthday. He's been gone a few years now, but the annual rolling around of National Pig Day (March 1) continues to bring a smile to my face and happy memories to my mind. Happy birthday, Tom. You were the best.

Aaaaiiieeeee!

Wow, this has not been my morning for WPS news. Not even close.

Puma unveiled the new uniforms for the league this past week, which I paid attention to only long enough to decide that (1) I like the Red Stars' Chicago flag-inspired jerseys, and (2) I cannot afford 70 bucks to buy one, even if I could get past the girl-cut that wouldn't fit my shoulders anyway. I did not pay attention to the point that my head needs to explode until this today. The story is here.

The WTF factor comes here:



Hey, what's up with the goofy shorts?





Wait a minute...





Skorts?

Uh, excuse me? Hi, we're the WPS, the last chance for pro women's soccer to be taken seriously in this country--seriously comes with a huge grain of salt, of course, since, you know, we got the double whammy of both "soccer" and "women" going here--so we need to do everything exactly right. Hey, I know! Let's put the girls in skorts! It'll be just like A League of Their Own! And we should get Rosie to be a spokeswoman, because that will tie in with the theme and totally bring all of America on board with us!

Jesus fucking Christ on a Triscuit. In a skort. I mean, at least they won't be wearing them during games, but why Puma thought it even needed to offer them as an option to some of the teams for wear "to and from the field, after practice -- and if a player really wants to, they can wear it on the field, too, in training or warm-up"--confuses me and pisses me off just a little. Here, honey, button this wrap onto your shorts to cover up so you look like a lady on your way to and from practice where you will be running and sweating your ass off. And feel free to leave it during pregame warmups until the last possible second, okay? Because God forbid someone should see you and forget you're a girl. Or see your muscular quads.

The Red Stars did not go with this option. Thank you, Chicago.

Swell.

My beloved Chicago Red Stars signed one of the big-name international players they called dibs on in the international draft. Unfortunately, it's Cristiane, the whiniest, diving-est, most annoying-est player on Brazil's national team.

When last we saw Cristiane, she was flailing around on the turf after the final whistle ended the US' 1-0 victory over Brazil in the World Cup Final, weeping and wailing after her many artistic and intricate flips to the ground after being bumped, breathed on, looked at, or merely thought about by US players failed to result in free kicks or penalties that might have put the ball in the net for Brazil.

So sad.

For the record, I didn't like Dennis Rodman either when he played for the Bulls. Hopefully her histrionics will die down a little once she hits Toyota Park. She is crazy fast and can do remarkable things with the ball. Let your game be enough, sweet cheeks, and leave the theatrics at home.

The Answer

A while back, a commenter asked me what I'd like to pick Rachel Maddow's brain over if we had the chance to sit down, and I have simply not been able to move past the goofy grin and incoherent noises that would be falling out of my mouth if that ever were to happen, since I would instantly and irrevocably be transformed into a babbling puddle of goo.

Megan Carpentier, however, has her shit infinitely more together than I ever will, and unwittingly provided me with my answer with this interview--over cocktails!--with the Good Doctor.

My interview with Rachel would actually go exactly like this one imagined by a commenter on the piece:

My interview with Rachel Maddow would go something like this-

Morninggloria: Hi Rachel, I really love your show gush gush gush gush talking talking talking getting nervous about talking and trying to get to question but ending up asking a question that's not even close to what I intended to ask. Gush gush gush.

Rachel: crickets.

Morninggloria: vomits on self.

'Nuff said.

Boo Hootie Hoo

Oh no! Carla, dear sweet nice cook-with-love Carla took some very bad advice from her sous chef and came in third in the Top Chef finale. We weep. And now annoying smug Hosea walks away with the title and the 100K, and we can't quite decide if this is better or worse than annoying cocky Stefan winning. Ugh. Ugh, ugh. Carla! Hootie! Please! Just trust your gut and quit letting other people make you second-guess yourself!

A lesson for us all, I suppose, where "us all" of course means "me." I totally get Carla wanting to compete without being devious or nasty, wanting to play nice and get along with everyone. And I totally get her innate lack of self-confidence and tendency to let stronger personalities talk her out of her own good ideas in favor of their own shitty ones. Stand up, woman, and let your own merits be enough, because they are considerable.

She helpfully listed her favorite DC haunts in a chat with the Washington Post on Wednesday, so if I'm ever there you will find me lurking on 14th near Adams, hopefully whispering Hootie? every time a tall African-American chef-like woman walks by.

In Hootie Hopefulness

Go Carla!



programming note: I won't actually be watching the finale until tomorrow night--stay up until 11:00? Love ya, Top Chef, but I don't think that's happening--so don't spoil it for me in comments, por favor. Hopefully Friday will be one big giant Carla lovefest on the Boltblog!

Life in the Petri Dish, Part Two

Yesterday it was a proposal to permanently eliminate business property taxes and significantly cut corporate income and capital gains taxes in a state that's looking at a major budgetary shortfall. Today in Jan Brewer's Arizona, we are reminded of exactly how important the Janet Napolitano firewall was in the statehouse.

A major abortion bill has cleared its first hurdle at the Arizona Legislature.

The House Health and Human Services Committee on Wednesday endorsed the Republican-sponsored bill on a 5-0 vote, with Democratic opponents boycotting the hearing and not voting on the measure.

The legislation would require a pre-abortion waiting period and mandatory disclosures to women seeking abortions. It also allows pharmacists and health care providers to refuse to participate in abortion or emergency contraception on moral grounds. Other provisions toughen the existing law on parental rights.

Let's look at that scorecard. Gutting public education, gutting health and human services, instituting a conscience clause, mandating anti-abortion scare tactics? Check, check, check, and checkaroony. I normally deplore slippery slope speculating, but I really have to wonder what's next on the all-conservative-policies-all-the-time experimental agenda. The Sonoran Desert Protection Plan has to be on shaky ground these days, along with any other environmental conservation measure that's been flung up in the path of the belly scrapers. Perhaps some even nastier anti-immigration policy is in the works. Maybe we'll one-up North Dakota and give full personhood rights to sperm and unfertilized eggs (as long as they reside in the bodies of legally-here heterosexual Americans, of course). I'm sure all we need to do is wait until tomorrow to get even more good news.

Conscience clauses. Fuck me. Waiting periods. "Mandatory disclosures." I certainly can't wait to get some clarification about what that entails. Wait, wait, let me guess. Did you know your baby has fingernails? Fuck. Me. Oh, wait, here we go.

[The] proposal also would require that a patient be informed of alternatives to abortion, medical benefits and government assistance available pre- and postnatal, the medical risks associated with both having an abortion and carrying the fetus to term and the probable gestational age and physiological characteristics of the fetus.

Ur behbeh haz fingernalz! Check.

Now how about that conscience clause? Here's the full text of the bill. At the very top of the document it's made clear that "abortion does not include birth control devices [or] oral contraceptives used to inhibit or prevent ovulation or conception." Okay, great--it's a nutter bill, but at least it's grounded in a rational definition of abortion, right? What could go wrong? Oh. Apparently the definition can be ignored when it comes to constructing the conscience clause.

A pharmacy, hospital or health professional, or any employee of a pharmacy, hospital or health professional, who states in writing an objection to abortion, abortion medication or emergency contraception on moral or religious grounds is not required to facilitate or participate in the provision of an abortion, abortion medication or emergency contraception.

So given the fact that the bill goes out of its way to clarify that oral contraceptives intended to inhibit ovulation--in other words, exactly what emergency contraceptives are--are not abortion equivalents, it's pretty clear that the inclusion of Plan B within the conscience clause is purely a sop to pharmacists who either failed the progestin section of the final exam or are too interested in making sure whores suffer the consequences of their wanton fucking to care. Or it's a sop to the legislators who will vote for this anyway and like to think Plan B is abortion. And, by the way, the reporter who wrote the story for the Citizen should be just a little bit ashamed for wording the article in a way that conflates EC with pharmaceutical abortion. In either event, Rep. Barto can't be bothered by the problems this might cause to women in rural areas of the state--and remember, no less a luminary than Cindy McCain herself said the only way to get around Arizona is by small private plane since there are no roads here:

The prime sponsor of the legislation, state Rep. Nancy Barto, downplayed any hurdles the provision would represent.

"Certainly, people in rural areas are accustomed to traveling long distances for services," said Barto, R-Phoenix. "This isn't going to keep women from receiving these prescriptions."

See, if you're already used to having to drive 50 miles to the pharmacy, it won't be at all inconvenient to drive another 50 when the first pharmacist invites you to fuck off, and then another 50, and another 50 until you manage to hit a Walgreen's with a pharmacist who will actually do his job! Why are you complaining? Harpy!

I hope Sec. Napolitano totally rocks Homeland Security and turns it into an effective, functional agency so that it will have been worth it for her to give the Maricopa County Republicans a two-year head start on turning Arizona into a conservative politician's paradise. But this sets the bar impossibly damn high.

Welcome to the Ehrlenmeyer Flask

*cracking knuckles*

Well, well, well, this morning's paper brought the news that post-Janet Napolitano Arizona is rapidly being converted into a lab for experimental Total Republican Policy Immersion, and I'm not sure whether we're rats or fruit flies in this scenario. The state is already looking at a budget shortfall of $2.4 billion in the next fiscal year, so the next logical step after gutting education and human services--"logical" here meaning "prescribed under conservative fiscal dogma"--is to... cut taxes! Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee voted Monday to permanently repeal the state property tax rather than allowing it to return this year after a scheduled three-year hiatus.

And lawmakers sent out clear signals that repealing the property tax may just be the beginning of Republican efforts to cut taxes, particularly on businesses.

Committee members began debating — but did not vote on — another bill from Rep. Rick Murphy, R-Glendale, who chairs the committee. The bill would cut corporate income taxes, reduce property taxes companies pay on equipment and slash the taxes paid on capital gains.

The reasoning is as expected; Arizona's existing property tax structure is on the ouch side, hitting businesses at twice the rate of domestic property taxes and rolling equipment in excess of $65K into the assessed valuation, and so discourages businesses from moving here. And the Republican reaction is equally expected; rather than modifying the structure, they want to eliminate the property tax outright and cut the corporate income tax rate in order to lure more companies here. And this will result in an immediate $250 million shortfall for the state this year.

It's a tossup. The equipment tax is a strong disincentive for more lucrative manufacturing operations. More companies opening up shop here means more jobs. Across-the-board property tax elimination, corporate rate cuts, and a proposed whopping 57 percent reduction of corporate capital gains taxes means less revenue for the state. And our new solidly Republican state government has already shown that less revenue means zero support for education and social services beyond the stuff that's federally mandated, because they cannot for the life of them recognize any connection between the quality of public education and the quality of the jobs that will be available to graduates of the system.

The revenue loss would mean less money for education, [Tucson High teacher Elizabeth Slaine] said. And Arizona's economy won't improve unless there are people qualified to be in business.

Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, scoffed at that contention.

"Education does not create jobs," he said. "Entrepreneurs and businesses create jobs."

Good luck building your business with people who can't read or do basic math well enough to fill out your purchase orders, Andy. I'm not sure where the entrepreneurs you're counting on will be coming from, unless you're assuming they'll all have to be lured in from out-of-state with your massive tax breaks. Hell, while you're at it, why not simply convert Arizona to a mainland offshore island economy, where no uncomfortable questions are asked of corporate masters and a permanent underclass is being readied as we speak?

Sweatblogging

Spring sprang over the weekend. Now it is hot.

Yet again, I failed to see any of the films nominated for Best Film, although I did see Wall-E. Which had a nominated song and some technical awards. For me that's pretty good. As much as I love the movie theater popcorn, I do not love paying upwards of nine-ten bucks to sit in a room with people who bring infants and toddlers to definitely non-age-appropriate movies, who idly text on their phones throughout the movie, or just sit and have full-volume conversations during the movie. And it sucks, because I used to love going to the movies way back in the day.

I paid to see Raiders of the Lost Ark twenty times in the theater. Twenty! Total geek in high school! Total geek still!

Total geek who hasn't gotten around to seeing Slumdog. Is it on video yet?

I liked Hugh Jackman as host, and had no idea he could sing. Sophia Loren frightened me. You know she was just waiting for someone to ask uh, what now? about that homemade pot-scrubber dress so she could coolly remove their head with a single icy glare. I also liked the mini-affirmation ceremonies for the best acting noms. Everyone goes home a winner!

In other news, I am still apparently not back into it enough to dive into politics. Coming soon, I promise.

Mmmmmppphhhh

After a day jam-packed with utterly mundane domestic chores, I am unapologetically sitting with my feet up watching the Tar Heels biff it to a bunch of guys dressed like mustard bottles and enjoying the best snacks the kitchen has to offer. If pale ale and Girl Scout cookies are wrong, I don't want to be right ever again.

Thin Mints. Le sigh.

What a fuck of a week. My deepest personal misery can never touch the super special suckwad misery that accompanies my kid's life unraveling. His best friend is still in an undisclosed location in California and CPS can barely muster the energy for a shrug in the boy's direction. And he (my kid) got cut from the varsity volleyball team in a decision that spurred the captain to come apologize to him on behalf of the rest of the team for the coach's baffling rostering decisions. But! He got his driver's license today, so maybe things will start to turn around for him.

They better. I've been too heartsick to do much besides bury myself in work, not even slacking enough to update the blog more than a couple of times.

There is a lot to talk about, after all. We have North Dakota deciding that zygotes have equal legal standing to actual people and superior legal standing to their mobile incubators the women carrying them. We have the Arizona legislature deciding to cut off all non-federally-mandated funding to the Division of Economic Security, which administers minor programs like children & family services and services to people with developmental disabilities. Oh! And we have Hootie-Hoo Carla advancing to the finale of Top Chef! Swoon!

I will get to these topics tomorrow. Today I am busy with a Thin Mints tower.

This is not a Cupcake Blog

Public service announcement:

Many, many readers have found their way here after Google searches returning this innocent little picture:

I brazenly nicked it from the Google myself back on my birthday, because it was the happiest little cupcake picture I could find. I would like to eat it even now.

So if you have come here in search of cupcakes, you will be sorely disappointed, but if you are interested in breathless up-to-the-minute updates on what it means to be a totally cool cutting-edge middle-aged lesbian Tucson archaeologist who may or may not have an unhealthy fixation on Rachel Maddow, do stick around.

Or if you're Homer and want to bake me some highly glutenized cupcakes like the one in the picture, you can do that too.

We now continue with our regularly scheduled John McCain Is A Total Douchebag programming. Enjoy!

Oh, This is Nice

Just a reminder, if we needed one, that no matter what happens in Hawaii or how loud the post-election anti-Prop 8 protests were or how many lesbians finagle marriage licenses in Tucson, the crap is still out there, and it's thick. The following is merely a short excerpt from a full-page ad run in the Salt Lake Tribune.

For example, by holding hands and kissing in the public area of: an apartment complex playground, in a family neighborhood, at a party, or to present one's self as a homosexual person in the workplace, is stating and displaying that he or she practices sodomy, and if backed by law, will force the acceptance of homosexuality as a relationship equal to a man and woman relationship.

Quelle horreur. By holding hands in "the public area of a party"--do you need a press pass to get in there? I am confused--you send a message about a specific sexual practice. Kinda throws our annual Christmas party into a whole new light; O Holy Night indeed! I'm not sure what message is sent by a straight couple holding hands, although the way this is written, apparently all hand-holding couples are broadcasting their affinity for non-P/V sex, since orientation isn't exactly specified there in the present active participle. Utah, you can has it. I was there once, or at least my right hand was, for maybe ten seconds while playing at the Four Corners Monument. That will be plenty for one lifetime.

Top!Secret G-woman knows how to keep me cheery! By sending along stuff from Andrew Sullivan she knows I didn't get around to reading!

Huh

Friday's Daily Star announced that two lesbians got a marriage license from the Pima County clerk in Tucson during a Freedom to Marry protest on Thursday. The original plan appeared to have been for a male couple to attempt to obtain a license as a centerpiece of the protest, and that part went off without a hitch when their application was rejected on the basis of the word "bride" having been scratched out and replaced with "groom." So then the lesbians decided to give it a go and just left the form unaltered. The clerk shrugged and said whatevs, and they walked out with a signed, stamped, and notarized marriage license, leaving their fellow protestors a bit dumfounded and forcing a slight change in the program from full-on protest to slightly befuddled celebration.

[Clerk of the court Patti] Noland said her clerks do not ask about a couple's gender when they apply for a marriage certificate.

"It doesn't matter one way or another. If they fill out the form and swear it's true and correct, we'll issue the marriage license," Noland said.

The women could face charges of fraudulent schemes and practices, a Class 5 felony.

The women are prepared to argue that the information they provided and swore to is accurate, and that they cannot be held liable for an inherently faulty legal form that presupposes "bride/groom" rather than "party 1/party 2." No one is really expecting any charges to be filed, and no one, unfortunately, is really expecting any state-sanctioned nuptials either. The local marriage equality folks are lining up the ACLU and Lamba Legal for the inevitable court case when the state--bound both by statute and the reprehensible constitutional amendment passed in November by every fucking county except ours--refuses to honor the license that was issued.

Still, interesting times. Interesting decision by the clerk who okayed the application, interesting reaction by the head clerk, and, I'm sure, an interesting bit of litigation coming down the pike. Stay tuned.

Back, if a Bit Boggled

The runaway is alive, at least, and his foster mother is pretty sure his drug-addict biological mom has taken him to California. The cops are about as disinterested as they can be, possibly because the kid in question is 16 and male and with biological relatives, despite the fact that they were stripped of their parental rights because of, oh yeah, that little major drug problem. They told the foster mom to call them if she figures out exactly where he is and then maybe they'll try to get him back.

My ex, who works for the division of state government that encompasses Child Protective Services, says the cops are fairly worthless in cases like this until CPS and the foster care system get on their asses. I hope that happens soon. I just want the boy to come home so my son can get his life back on track--it's not every day that the guy you've been best friends with since fourth grade just disappears--and then I want to hug him and strangle him. Haven't decided which order those will happen in yet.

Goddamn Kids

We have been taking a brief hiatus, hopefully no more than a few days. My son's best friend ran away from home Sunday night and has yet to be definitively located, so my focus needs to be someplace other than political and cultural snark for now.

Hug 'em if you got 'em.

John McCain is a Fucking Tool

Remember the John McCain we had during the campaign? The one who scoffed at Barack Obama's ability to get anything done in Washington because only he, St. John Bipartisan McCain, had an established record of putting partisan politics aside and reaching across the aisle for the greater good of the country? Yeah, that guy? He doesn't exist any more.

But this week, with President Barack Obama in the White House and McCain back in Congress, the Arizona senator has played a prominent and uncompromising role in rallying Republican opposition to the Democratic majority and its stimulus plan.

McCain's actions in the stimulus debate make for a very different leadership profile than he touted during the presidential campaign. His push for tax cuts as well as spending cuts, and his slashing, partisan rhetoric, are a far cry from his role a few years ago in leading a bipartisan coalition that sought compromise on how the Senate handles judicial nominations.

The Senate debate on the stimulus plan is only a few days old, but McCain's already demonstrating a distressing readiness to engage in campaign-style obfuscation to score political points at the expense of that greater good.

"This bill has become nothing more than a massive spending bill," he has said. "To portray it as stimulus flies in the face of reality."

Does McCain understand what stimulus is? It is an injection of cash into the economy, and providing federal and state agencies with funding to spend on projects that have to be contracted out to private companies that will then be able to, you know, pay their employees to do the work is a far surer syringe than yet another round of tax cuts that will ensure the wealthiest Americans have even more cash to sock away in untouchable offshore accounts. So yes, it is a massive spending bill. But it will spread the wealth to a far greater segment of the population and result in concrete, material results that benefit society as a whole than the same amount of money handed out in the form of tax cuts. And ain't nothin' wrong with that.

Let Rachel break it down for you.

Friday Again? That Was Quick

The week screamed by and I barely noticed. Some items pinging my radar today:

In the Whole Lotta Good, Little Bitta Crap department we have Obama capping a week of signing SCHIP and capping bailed-out-executive compensation at $500K (sniff, sob) by reversing course on federally-funded faith-based organizations and deciding they can go ahead and keep discriminating in hiring after all.

Obama clearly singled out the policy during a July campaign speech, declaring that "if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them — or against the people you hire—on the basis of their religion."

But once he won the election, religious conservatives began lobbying Obama and his transition team on the issue.

Thursday's announcement surprised and pleased religious conservatives, who had a strong ally in Bush and had been pressing the new Democratic president to revoke his earlier promise.

While this may not be as bad as it looks on the surface--a review process has been put in place to "ensure that federal programs and practices involving grants or contracts to faith-based organizations are consistent with law," allowing specific grants to be evaluated for legality in hiring--the glossy picture doesn't show the details of what was probably intended to be a compromise but has come back looking like capitulation. Capitulation to conservatives, again, for no apparent gain other than the ability to cite specific examples of attempted cooperation and accomodation of decidedly non-liberal viewpoints, while giving a tacit imprimatur to religious discrimination and using federal funds for just a little bit of proselytizing on the side.

In other capitulation news, I think I'm capitulating on trying to understand the machinations at work as the Senate holds the stimulus bill up by its ankles and shakes it in hopes that something good falls out of its pockets. It came in at $880B, climbed to $920B, moderate Republicans tried to trim it to $650B, and now it's settled at about $800B. And still no one is sure what needs to be in it and what needs to be out. I sure as hell don't know.

Some items on the cutting board included $99 million in technology upgrades for the State Department's National Cyber Security Initiative, $200 million for benefits for Filipino veterans, $55 million for the Historic Preservation Fund, and $122 million for the Coast Guard to purchase new or renovated polar icebreakers.

But senators also debated whether to keep in the bill numerous big-ticket items that their colleagues had fought for. About $14 billion in Pell grant funding appeared to have survived, but some senators were targeting at least $10 billion in other education programs. Billions of dollars in energy efficiency incentives and state aid also were under review by the centrist group.

Could the problem be that the scope of the stimulus package is simply too far-reaching and hopelessly broad? We are in a state of panic and everyone agrees that somebody has to do something right now about it, but one of the first rules of surviving a disaster is to compartmentalize. We need economic triage, and what's coming out of the House and Senate at the moment is the equivalent of the guests in a ballroom that's caught fire running around screaming with their hands in the air trying to put out all the fires and collect all the fur coats and save the champagne and finish the quickie in behind the stairs and hey how about we strip that old wallpaper while we're in here instead of assessing, planning, and executing a series of small tasks in order.

Don't get me wrong; I love Filipino veterans as much as the next guy, and appreciate the need for polar icebreakers--although if the Coast Guard can just wait a few months, all the polar ice should be gone anyway--but I don't know that their funding belongs in this bill. The on-fire ballroom absolutely needs some ADA-compliant toilets and low-energy compact fluorescent lighting, but the plumbers and electricians should really wait to get in there until the fire is out or there might not be enough money left over to pay the firemen, and then no ballroom left to upgrade. Can we not have a series of stimulus bills that are graded to address the most pressing needs first?

That, of course, would require a majority of senators to agree on those most pressing needs, and prospects for that are grim.

My Terrible Dark Secret

I may or may not have kind of a thing for Martha Stewart, not in a dykey way, just an awkward awestruckness at her ingenuity. I definitely have a totally dykey thing for Rachel Maddow, as you may have surmised. And I like carrot soup.

Forthwith, what it looks like when my worlds collide.

Monday Recession Blues

Hot on the heels of Homer's succinct summation of Arizona's new all-Republican state government on, well, the state of Arizona, we learn this morning that a Tucson city councilman has proposed a one-year waiver of impact fees for developers in an attempt to jumpstart the construction industry in the area.

The money that would be given up is funding that would pay for infrastructure and services around the new commercial and residential developments.

[Rodney] Glassman's proposal has broad support from the development and construction sectors. In fact, Glassman said he crafted it after meeting with several commercial and residential developers.

In fact? I'm sure he did. Glassman claims that allowing developers to forego impact fees would foster more urban infill development and curtail sprawl into the few outlying areas that remain untouched by the housing boom of the early '00s. Considering that the impact fees were instituted in the first place to rein in that sprawl, wherein developers were allowed to cram as many crackerjack houses onto lots as they could without being liable for the resulting exponential increase in demand for high-volume roads, utilities, public safety, and schools, this argument sounds just a wee bit counterintuitive to me.

Also confusing my limited brainpower this morning is the continuing connection of a metropolitan area's economic health to new housing starts. I understand that guys in construction need to build houses in order to get paid, but has anyone noticed how many houses in fairly new developments are standing vacant? Or vacant and unfinished? Or how many houses in established neighborhoods are for sale? Who exactly is supposed to buy and live in all the new houses Councilman Glassman is hoping to help build? It's not a big Habitat for Humanity project he has in mind.

It's a similar boggling argument to the one made by Representative Don Manzullo (R-IL) on Rachel Maddow Thursday night, in which he insisted that a better use of stimulus money than infrastructure improvements would be subsidizing new car loans so that American auto manufacturers would get the new orders they need to stay in business.

You take a $5000 voucher, you go to your Chrysler dealer or dealer of your choice, you buy the car, you knock 25 percent off that car, then you could buy a nice Jeep Patriot for less than $300 a month!

Well, okay. Buying that nice Jeep Patriot with government help still means I'm out, what, $299 a month, and that I've helped keep a couple hundred Illinois GM workers on the job for an additional couple of months before the company folds. The end result is that they're still out of work sooner rather than later and I'm stuck with a shiny new SUV I can't afford to make the payments on or keep in gas. Take the cash for those umpteen million $5000 vouchers you want to hand out and pour it into rail upgrades and bridge repair and updating the electric grid, and while it still may be only a few thousand workers here and there whose jobs are being preserved--likely none of them in the auto industry--in return for those continuing individual paychecks and individual boosts in buying power we get something concrete to show for it. We get infrastructure improvements that ultimately benefit everyone. But the Republicans somehow think it's socialism when government money is used for public works rather than for individual conspicuous consumption.

Pulling back to Tucson, now, the question remains of who benefits from impact fee suspensions besides Pulte Homes and Diamond Ventures when the rest of us are stuck with the bill for the new roads, sewers, and gas lines that will be run to the new houses. And what, exactly, is supposed to make infill more attractive than blade 'n' grade when the cost to the builder is all the same.

We Also Has a Migraine

Ancient and not-so-ancient people the world over drilled holes in their heads from time to time (or hacked good-sized chunks out of their own skulls with stone knives), and after the past 24 hours that is starting to make more and more sense to me.





















This might have helped yesterday.

They always hit in the wee hours of a weekend morning, like 3:30 wee, which severely limits my chances of getting a Torodol shot from my doctor's office. Can it ever be during regular business hours? Heavens no.

Figure VIII is the ticket.

Would you like to be Boltgirl for a day? Find an icepick. Draw an imaginary line connecting your left and right temples. Hold the icepick horizontally and place the point at the intersection of this imaginary line with the outside of your left temple. Have a friend drive the icepick into your head along this line, preferably with a four-pound crackhammer, until the point of the pick is lodged directly behind your left eyeball. Leave it there for 48 hours. Maybe tie a weight to the handle of the pick so it wiggles every time you move your head. There, wasn't that easy?

In other news, the Super Bowl is today and I sincerely hope my head stops exploding long enough for me to drink enough beer to make it explode in different ways. Chez Bolt is not rooting for the Cardinals, despite being located in the same state. The girlfriend grew up outside Pittsburgh and the Steelers have always been my AFC team of choice, and, besides, Bill Bidwell is slimy, the Cards never made much of an effort to be friendly to Baja Arizona, and all the taxpayer money that went to build their very strange looking stadium in Glendale opened the gates to an ongoing flood of public funds to that godawful municipality, which has since sucked more than the lion's share of resources to west Phoenix and left Tucson more and more in the dust.

And thus ends the bitchfest for this weekend.