Steve Jobs (10/5)
I spent most of my life making fun of Apple products, until this year when I actually bought a few. I'm very happy with my iPad and MacBook Pro, and looking forward to moving up from my Droid (which started out fine, but has started to suck lately) to an iPhone. I don't know much about Jobs, but he seemed like a good guy.
Kim Jong-il (12/17)
Kim Jong-il, AKA our dear sweet little general soldier leader boy, was best known for his role as the North Korean dictator in Team America: World Police. He was a total nutcase.
Jack LaLanne (1/23)
Apparently this guy was like 150 years old or something, and did nothing all day except exercise and drink juice. I never saw his old stuff from the 50's, but I remember an informercial for his juicer, where he made some kind of statement about how juice is all about life, and meat is all about despair and death. I think I was eating a giant steak the first time I saw it, and it really made me think - if guys like this can live for a long time and never eat meat, then maybe, just maybe, there will be more left for me.
Harmon Killebrew (5/17)
The only thing I remember about this guy is that he was on Home Run Derby, which I used to watch as a kid. Watch on Hulu
Heavy D (11/8)
He never got much notoriety as a thin rapper named Skinny D, so he put on a few pounds and reinvented himself as that guy who did the In Living Color opening theme.
Frances Bay (9/15)
Frances was best known as Happy Gilmore's grandmother in the Adam Sandler masterpiece. Great movie, unlike the crap that Sandler's been spewing lately.
Muammar Gaddafi (10/20)
This guy holds the record for the most number of spellings of his name. Aside from that, the only thing I know about him is that he was the head of the country that tried to kill Doc Brown, so I think the world is better off now. Watch on YouTube
Osama bin Laden (5/2)
Good riddance to this piece of garbage.
It's election season again - it may not be a Presidential, U.S. Senate/Congress, gubernatorial, or even mayoral election, but it's still an election. On September 1st, the City of Phoenix city council members for Districts 2, 4, 6, and 8 will be elected.
I am currently residing in District 2, so I will limit my recommendations to my own ballot, as I did for the 2008 election. I encourage you to do your own research, study the candidates from all perspectives, and make an informed decision based on your interpretation of the issues, and the history and character of the candidates, before blindly accepting my pick.
Below is my personal recommendation for District 2, along with a detailed explanation of why I am making this decision:
Council Member - District 2: Peggy Neely Detailed Explanation: She is running unopposed.
Thank you for taking the time to read my opinions on the upcoming election. Please feel free to provide your supporting or opposing opinions on this race in the comments.
The election is finally over, and we can get back to real life - so I'll get back to topics that I'm more qualified to talk about, like software development, comedy, TV, and movies. Expect to see more fun and interesting topics, instead of the constant barrage of politics I've been spewing the past few months.
But first, here are the results of the election for my ballot, along with a few comments from me on some of the losses.
School Governing Board Member Paradise Valley Unif No. 69:
LOSS:
West Kenyon
WIN:
Anne Greenberg
WIN:
Nancy Case
LOSS:
Question 1 (Budget Increase): Yes
WIN:
Question 2 (Budget Increase): Yes
Retention of Judges:
State Supreme Court (only one):
WIN:
Yes for Scott Bales
Court of Appeals, Division 1 (three judges):
WIN:
Yes for all three (Diane Johnsen, Ann Scott Timmer, Patricia Orozco)
Maricopa County Superior Court:
LOSS:
No for Crane McClennen: McClennen was the only judge not recommended by the Judicial Performance Commission. My guess is that if more people knew this, they would have been more likely to vote him out. But I'm sure 75% of the people out there vote Yes for everyone or No for everyone without even knowing anything about them. I don't know anything about the guy myself, but I trusted the judgment of the commission.
N/A
Abstain on Akers, Araneta, Contes, Gentry-Lewis, Hannah, Oberbillig, Padilla, Steinle
Proposition 102: No: Apparently bigotry and intolerance are alive and well in this country - or at least in Arizona and the other states which passed similar amendments.
Proposition 200: Yes: Not a big loss - I certainly won't miss the payday loan stores, but I will miss one of the freedoms that is now being taken away.
Below are my personal recommendations for this November's election. These are my selections for my ballot, which contains state and local races - so unless you're in my district, many of these will not apply to you.
There's still a couple weeks before the election, but unless something drastic changes, these will be my choices.
Federal: President: John McCain (R) U.S. Representative: John Shadegg (R)
Maricopa County: Board Of Supervisors: Marilyn Fox (D) Assessor: Keith Russell (R) County Attorney: Andrew Thomas (R) Recorder: Helen Purcell (R) School Superintendent: Don Covey (R) Sheriff: Joe Arpaio (R) County Treasurer: Charles Hoskins (R) Justice Of The Peace: Clancy Jayne (R) Constable: Cory Hazlett (R) Special Health Care District 3: Abstain Community College District 3: Pam Petty
School District: School Governing Board Member Paradise Valley Unif No. 69: West Kenyon, Anne Greenberg, Nancy Case Question 1 (Budget Increase): Yes Question 2 (Budget Increase): Yes
Retention of Judges: State Supreme Court (only one): - Yes for Scott Bales Court of Appeals, Division 1 (three judges): - Yes for all three (Diane Johnsen, Ann Scott Timmer, Patricia Orozco) Maricopa County Superior Court: - No for Crane McClennen - Abstain on Akers, Araneta, Contes, Gentry-Lewis, Hannah, Oberbillig, Padilla, Steinle - Yes for Abrams, Arellano, Baca, Ballinger, Blakey, Buttrick, Cohen, Davis, Ditsworth, Dunevant, Flores, Garcia, Gordon, Harrison, Hilliard, Hoffman, Katz, Kemp, Klein, Mahoney, McMurdie, McNally, McVey, L. Miles, R. Miles, Potts, Ryan, Sanders, Stephens, Trujillo, Udall, Whitten
Sheriff Joe Arpaio is up for re-election with this November's ballot. Arpaio is one of the most famous law enforcement officials in the country, known for such tactics as building a "Tent City" jail in Arizona, pink underwear and handcuffs for inmates, and getting his name and face in as much media as is humanly possible for a sheriff. Arpaio is a media hound, but he is very good at what he does.
One of the most controversial aspects of his tenure is his stance on illegal immigration. Arpaio has made his position abundantly clear: Illegal immigration is a crime, and it is the job of law enforcement to enforce all laws, which means locking up criminals. Regardless of anyone's personal opinions, the law of the land is simple - being in the country illegally is ILLEGAL, meaning law enforcement is obligated to do something about it. Arpaio is one of the few elected officials in the entire country willing to take action to prevent the illegal invasion of our country.
Democrat Dan Saban seems like a decent guy, who would probably do a fair job as sheriff. Saban may up to the job, but why risk it?
Sheriff Joe is a proven leader who has done his part time and time again in the fight against crime, including illegal immigration. He has his faults, but overall he is the best man for the job.
Arizona Proposition 300 would increase state legislator salaries fromm $24,000 to $30,000.
Supporters ask you to consider the fact that their salaries haven't been increased in 10 years, and that $24,000 is not enough for people in these positions to survive on. They believe that higher salaries will help prevent corruption in the legislature by giving them a more fair salary.
Opponents, including Governor Napolitano, claim that the budget is already in bad enough shape, and an increase would only worsen the situation. They also point out that this increase has failed with the voters several times already.
State legislation is a part-time job. Depending on where you get your information, you'll find that these people work less than 100 days a year. They also get a per diem. When you take those facts into consideration, the salary starts to seem more reasonable. It's hard to say that someone who hasn't had a raise in 10 years doesn't deserve one - but this doesn't seem like the right time, or the right amount. Maybe after the budget is in a little better shape, and when the per diem has been regulated better, this might make more sense. But for now, I'm voting "No" (but not a strong NO) on this proposition.
Arizona Proposition 202, known as the Arizona Stop Illegal Hiring Act, is a gigantic scam that will do exactly the opposite of what it says. It's one of the worst propositions to make it on a ballot in years.
Supporters give us plenty of arguments that sound good on the surface, but in reality are bold-face lies. The arguments state that the initiative is "aimed at stopping employers from hiring illegal immigrants" and it "puts unscrupulous employers on notice". They claim that passing this initiative will continue to crack down on our illegal immigration problem, in the same way as our employer sanctions laws have. This all sounds great on the surface, but when you dig a little deeper, you'll find that they are lying straight to your face.
- It removes the state hiring requirements, which allows employers to default to the less strict federal requirements.
- It removes the punishment for many companies by redefining the term "license" to exclude LLC's and corporations.
- It removes the anonymous tip line, by requiring complaintants to file a written complaint of a problem.
- It requires an officer or owner of the company to have actually committed the offense in order to be punished. Normal hiring managers can hire all they want without consequence.
- If you're wondering who initiated this proposition, you're not alone. Apparently, through some loophole, the were able to stay anonymous, meaning they don't want you to know who they are.
Arizona already has great laws that are still in the introductory phase. The employer sanctions law is an outstanding idea, and was overwhelmingly supported by legal Arizona citizens. It is very clear that the majority of legal citizens are sick and tired of the millions of criminal trespassers (aka illegal aliens) stealing our jobs, our tax money, our benefits, and our identities. We need to put a stop to this invasion, and that means tougher laws, not laws to reverse the progress we have made.
Please do not fall for the lies of these amnesty supporters. Please vote NO on proposition 202.
Right on Joe!!! All anyone has to do is look at who is behind Prop 202 to see who this is going to benefit... the people who have and will use cheap illegal labor. This prop was brought about by people in the fast food industry, argricultural industry, lanscaping and chambers of commerce. They tried to stop our employer sanctions law in court several times and failed, even before a 9th circuit judge! Now they are counting on fooling people into voting their way. They called this prop 'Stop Illegal Hiring' for one reason only. They know that the majority of Arizona voters want illegal hiring stopped. They are counting on the voters to see the title, believe it and vote yes for it because that's what they want. They are counting on voters NOT looking at what Prop 202 REALLY is and does. It's a lie that will destroy our current sanctions law and make it easier for people to hire illegals without fear of any prosecution.
Sure, Prop 202 has 'stiffer penalities' for employers but stiffer penalties do NO GOOD when they can't be enforced. Prop 202 makes enforcement IMPOSSIBLE!
If you want to put an end to illegal immigration and the loss of American jobs to illegal aliens, please, VOTE NO ON 202.
Date: 2008-10-23 10:07:18
Name:
larry
New info please read 10/23/08 The Wigwam Golf Resort & spa Alledgedly Breaking our immigration laws. (GOD BLESS AMERICA)
It is alledged that they are hiring illegals with bogus or stolen SSI numbers. Alledgedly the names of the persons giving our jobs away to illegals are the following. Mrs. martina and a Mrs. Barbara in Human Resourses at the wigwam golf resort & spa .They alledgedly are the ones that run E-verify checks on all new hires and tell us that they have lived up to the letter and spirit of the law. When they very well should know that most illegals working there are alledgedly working with some one else good stolen social security number and that is why they can pass an E verify check with flying colors it may very well be that the wigwam resort & spa May not be aware of what their Human Resourses personal are alledgedly up to. The Wigwam Golf Resort & spa 300 Wigwam Boulevard Litchfield Park, Arizona 85340 . I do not know if this true but if it is they are breaking our immigration laws. GOD BLESS AMERICA Here is where you can do to help. CALL sheriff Joe Arpio Illegal 24 Hour TIP HOT LINE 602-876-4154 and ask them to please look into this and find out if this employer the wigwam golf resort & spa is breaking the law .OR CALL THE WIGWAM RESORT AND ASKED THEM TO LOOK INTO THIS AND FIX IT OR ELS. HERE IS THEIR PHONE # 623-935-3811 Here is a link http://www.illegalimmigrationjournal.com/ Thank you very much Please do not flag my ad. GOD BLESS AMERICA
Arizona Proposition 102 is basically a duplicate of proposition 107 from two years ago. The amendment defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Although this is already part of the law, the amendment would put it directly into the constitution, to prevent the law from being overturned later.
Supporters claim that this amendment will protect Arizona's families and children by not allowing the gay lifestyle to influence the public. They cite statistics that states that allow homosexual marriages have more problems with their youth, like teen pregnancy and drug use.
Opponents start out their arguments with two very important statements: Arizona law already exists, and This was already rejected by the people two years ago. They claim that the supporters are bigots who are motivated solely by their hatred for gay people.
While I support most traditional Christian beliefs and values, I disagree with the religious side on this issue. People are people, regardless of who they are attracted to. Same-sex unions are out there, and aren't going away. An amendment like this would only open up the door to take away the benefits these unions have today, like health insurance, family leave, and other important benefits. One of two things will happen: 1) Current laws will become even more restrictive, making life even more difficult for a sizable portion of the population, or 2) Nothing will change, which means the amendment was a complete waste of time. I'll be voting against this amendment.
Yea - the issue isn't even whether being gay is good or bad - it is whether the government should discriminate based on orientation; allowing some couples rights and not others (like hospital visitation)
Arizona Proposition 101, known as "Medical Choice for Arizona" or "Freedom to Choose Act", is designed to protect patient freedom in choosing their medical providers.
Supporters make their position very clear - freedom of choice is absolutely crucial to the health and well-being of the American people. The government should not decide which doctor you see, or what treatment you get for particular ailments. Those decisions should be made solely by the patients and the doctors that they trust.
Opponents range from socialists to average people who just want to ensure that all people, especially children, have healthcare coverage. They make some very convincing arguments - many people simply cannot afford excellent health care, and they are unable to get the help they need.
As tempting as the idea of universal health care is, I don't think it's the right thing to do right now. Freedom is what this country was built on, and it must be protected. The system is obviously flawed, but whatever solution we come up with will have to involve freedom of choice. I recommend voting "Yes" on this proposition.
A review of internal communications by employees of the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System shows that the government agency was the driving force behind the formation of an opposition campaign against Proposition 101 — actions which could violate state law.
The documents were provided to supporters by The Goldwater Institute, which requested them through the Freedom of Information Act as part of their own investigation into the legality of AHCCCS’ actions. Prop. 101 supporters have already filed a lawsuit against AHCCCS over potential violations of state campaign laws.
The e-mails show that the government agency, with direction and support from the governor, made significant efforts to organize meetings and calls with potential supporters of an opposition campaign and crafted the controversial “unintended consequences” memo as a tool to give to opponents of the measure.
Arizona Proposition 100, known as the "Protect Our Homes Act", would amend the state constitution to prohibit the government from charging a real estate transfer tax on sales of properties.
Supporters of the proposition have basically a single argument: The government already imposes a regular and predictable tax on homeowners annually, which adds up to a single budgeted amount. A real estate transfer tax would be an unfair and unnecessary double-tax on homeowners. It would be an extra burden on people buying and selling property, and would make homeownership less attractive.
Opponents of the initiative claim that this change would bind the hands of society and government, by removing a potential source of income. They claim that if this measure passes, it would only help wealthy special interest groups. I'm not really sure what that's supposed to mean - I suppose it would help real estate corporations, but more importantly, it would help all homeowners.
Since there's currently not a real estate tax on the books, voting "No" wouldn't necessarily be bad for homeowners - it would just mean that the government has the option to create the taxes in the future. However, a "Yes" vote would potentially be great for homeowners, by ensuring that this unfair tax never gets implemented.
Arizona Proposition 201 is another initiative scheduled for the November election. This proposition, known as the "Homeowner's Bill Of Rights", is designed to make home builders more accountable for their work, by providing free 10 year warranties, giving homeowners more options for cancelling contracts, and other ways to help the home buyer instead of the home builder.
Several of the elements to this initiative make sense. It would be nice if builders were more accountable for their work - a "lemon" home should absolutely be fixed in a reasonable time period, and at no cost to the owner. But the funny thing is, this is already law. The proposition throws in a lot of unnecessary rules that would not help the buyer, but rather hurt all parties.
One of the interesting things to note at the very beginning is that this proposition was created by a California law firm. Right away, this tells you that something fishy is going on here. Why would a bunch of lawyers care about this? The answer is quite clear - this initiative means that there will be more lawsuits, which of course means more money for lawyers. One of the indirect results of this passing would be that the current first method of resolving conflicts, arbitration, would no longer be an option. If any conflicts arose, the first and only method of resolution would be to file a lawsuit, which in most cases, means lots of drawn-out hearings, meetings, and other red tape, rather than a civilized discussion among the parties.
There are some other noteworthy side effects: The "loser pays court fees" concept goes away - meaning that if a homeowner files a frivolous lawsuit against the builder, and loses (which he should), the builder gets stuck with the bill. Also, this gives even prospective buyers the ability to sue - a ridiculous concept. If you don't want a house, for whatever reason, just don't buy it. That's life.
There's one argument for this proposition that kind of sums the whole thing up rather nicely - here's a quote from a proponent:
Moving here from California, I couldn't believe there wasn't any laws in place that I could use to pressure builders into offering me a better price or more upgrades on my home. Fortunately, Prop. 201 opens the litigation statutes up to prospective buyers as well, so now I can contact my attorney if I believe a builder isn't offering me a fair price.
A perfect summation of their argument. Let's give morons like this the ability to sue builders for no reason whatsoever. If this guy doesn't like the builder's terms, rather than just NOT BUYING IT, he can sue the builder.
Like so many other ballot initiatives, this proposition tries to solve problems with one catch-all solution. If builders are building poorly designed houses, we should find the one or two specific things that we can do to fix it, and do that. If contractors are not holding up their ends of the bargain, we should hold them accountable. Not throw a bunch of unnecessary lawsuits out there and hope that one or two of them actually do more good than harm. Please join me and vote NO on proposition 201.
Arizona Proposition 105, known as the "Majority Rules Initiative" to its supporters, is on the ballot for this November. The idea is simple: Make it harder for special interests to create new taxes, in an attempt to control the fiscal crisis in the government. To do this, they want to require a majority of REGISTERED voters to vote YES on any new tax, fee, or other financial decisions, before they can be enacted into laws.
Arguments for this proposition seem to all revolve around one thing: We need to stop the special interests from creating all kinds of new taxes, and fix our screwed up budget, in order to keep taxes low. They go on about how the budget is on auto-pilot, and there's wasteful spending everywhere, and how this will curb those problems. Well...yes it would...but so would replacing the government with anarchy and removing taxes altogether. But that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
What these proponents never talk about is what the law would actually mean. If we require the majority of registered voters to vote yes, then what we're really doing is taking everyone who doesn't vote and automatically assigning them a "No" vote. In any election, a high percentage of people do not vote at all, and an even higher percentage don't vote on local issues. That's just life, and it's reality in America today. We don't assume that all registered voters who abstain from the presidential election automatically should vote for one party or the other - that would be ridiculous. So we can't assume that these same voters should be included in other elections either.
Dig a little deeper, and you'll see that the craziness continues. Not only would it include everyone who stayed home as a "No" vote, but it would also include those who have died or moved away in that category as well. Think about it - 500 registered voters who die before the election cancel out 500 "Yes" votes. If that isn't crazy, keep reading.
In local elections, many people abstain because they simply are not informed enough on the issues. That doesn't mean that they automatically think everything should be no - it just means that they are more comfortable with the informed people voting. Depending on what sources you read, some local elections have a voter turnout of less than 50%. What that means is that on any given financial issue, EVEN IF 100% OF THE PEOPLE VOTE "YES", IT WILL STILL FAIL, because the "majority" of voters did not vote yes.
This initiative would absolutely cripple democracy, by taking decisions away from the voters, and just throwing them into the wind. That's not what this country is about, and it's not what this state should be about.
I absolutely agree that something needs to be done to fix the financial and budget crisis. But throwing ridiculous laws at the voters in an attempt to take away their vote is not the answer. I can't understand how anyone can support this initiative, and sincerely hope that voters stand up and defend their voting rights by voting NO.
In Arizona, proposition 200, named "Payday Loan Reform Act", will be on the ballot this November. I've received plenty of mail, and heard lots of commercials in favor of the initiative, but until I read the initiative myself, and the official arguments for and against, I had no idea what was really going on.
The proponents of the proposition say that this will make payday loans better for Arizonans, by lowering fees, improving repayment options, and putting unscrupulous lenders out of business. It will take away options like rolling over balances, taking out multiple loans at the same time, and borrowing over the internet. As I was reading this, it looked like this was just another attempt to take away freedoms from businesses - after all, people are aware of how bad the rates are, but they get the loans anyway, because they need them. And the rates are ridiculous because the default rate is so high. The whole purpose of these things is for emergency money, and even with the obscenely high rates and fees, the services are not predatory or illegal. So I was all set to vote "No" on this one.
Then I started reading more about this. The opponents of the amendment don't make any of the points I do - they are actually very much against payday loans in general. It turns out that the whole system of payday loans will die in July 2010, unless something is done about it. So if this amendment passes, then all of these stores will close down. Payday lenders just wouldn't be able to be profitable with the kind of regulation that happens on normal loans, so they would just go away, and people who have emergency repairs or other unexpected needs, but no credit cards, would then bounce checks or accumulate late fees, doing further damage to their already bad financial situations.
Kind of a backwards scenario. The proponents argue that the amendment is all about making the industry more fair to the consumer, when in fact it's a desperate measure just to stay alive. While I don't like the tactics, I am in favor of the outcome. People should have the right to borrow money however they can, and if that means 400% payday loans, then that's the way it is, and if they can clean up a little bit of the industry at the same time, that's fine.
Just to be clear, I'm not a fan of payday loans - they are misused, overused, and many of the people who use them regret it - this is because they don't know how bad they are, or they know and don't have any other choice. These loans should be a last resort only, and the customers should be very well informed of what they're getting themselves into. The effort currently going into shutting these places down would be better spent educating consumers.
As annoying as it is seeing those establishments on every street corner and dozens in between, you do make a valid point. You have a lot of common sense, Joe. I'm very proud of you for that.
There's a sign ad all over my district, for republican state representative Ray Barnes. On the sign are several things that caught my eye:
1) AMMENDMENT is spelled wrong. If you care so much about something, at least spell it right. I'll accept the argument that this is an alternate spelling in some countries, but this is America - it should be spelled the same way as it is on the Constitution.
2) NO NEW TAXES BY ANY GOVERNMENT AGENCY - all words except "agency" are underlined. Doesn't really make sense.
3) The "securing the border" section has something wrong with it. It's hard to tell from the picture, but the word "BORDER" is smaller than the rest. As you look more closely, it turns out that the word is a sticker, stuck on the sign. Most likely, it's on top of another misspelled word. So they fixed one misspelling (not very well, though), and ignored the other.
4) Several of the sections are not vertically centered.
You may think that I'm just being picky, but in my opinion, when you're in the political spotlight, things like that are not acceptable. I see one of several possibilities:
1) Maybe he designed the signs himself (not likely). Then he did a poor job, and he shouldn't have done it himself.
2) Maybe he approved someone else's work. Either he couldn't take two minutes to look closely, or he did and approved it anyway without noticing the problems. Either way, it's not good.
3) Maybe he had nothing to do with it. Then he isn't responsible for the content of his own campaign.
4) Maybe he was in a hurry, and just didn't have time to fix them. Since he's an incumbent, he's had plenty of time to think about his campaign. Failing to do so would be a demonstration in disorganization.
I can't believe I missed this one...In the '2nd ammendment' box, the word 'the' and the 'nd' in '2nd' are lower-case, while every other word in the red boxes are in caps.
