About Me

Name:tohu.vavohu
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

evangelicals aren't going to vote

Posted by tohu.vavohu on Friday, November 03, 2006 2:17:49 AM
Or that's at least what the mainstream liberal base is saying, mainly the media.  But The Arizona Republic reports that Dr. James Dobson, in a broadcast earlier this week, is encouraging the "'...Conservative Christian...'" base to go out and vote this general election.  Dr. James Dobson tells "'...those values voters out there, don't you dare sit this one out...'"Dr. James Dobson and noting that "'...you have an obligation to come and participate in this great representative form of government...'"  Dobson has correctly "...called out Republicans for failing to make progress on social issues..." but I believe he understands that to logically provide for our futures, moral and ethical decisions have to be consistently made.  I believe he understands that for our country to continue in the most positive direction a vote for the conservative base it a vote for continuation of ethical morality.  It is up to us after the election to hold the elected to their moral obligations.  Our job isn't done after we cast of vote, we have an obligation to keep our elected officials in check.  We need to be more involved.  You can listen to Dr. James Dobson's broadcast here.  The article does say he was encouraging conservative Christians to vote but they didn't add that Dr. Dobson was begging his "...listeners to go to the polls on November the 7th and let their voices be heard.  The media is telling us every minute of the day, that uh, value voters are going to stay home.  That's what their saying, that we're disaffected and mad at Mark Foley and we're are going to stay at home.  Well we don't like what Mark Foley did but there; there are many other issues.  We can't sit this one out.  Let's prove the media wrong, on November the 7th!"

~tohu vavohu
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

i wouldn't recommend the chicken broth over the steak

Posted by tohu.vavohu on Tuesday, October 31, 2006 6:28:00 AM
I guessed that this would happen some time ago.  It was obvious, especially how they handled the stories they wanted to print.  To the people of Arizona, The Arizona Republic has recommended we vote for Janet Napolitano.  They say that "...Napolitano's emphasis on education has kept Arizona's focus right where it should be..."  I thought our education system was in last place (2)?  Is that were the focus should be?

The Republic also says, "...Napolitano tackled what seemed an intractable problem: the failure of an overburdened Child Protective Services to protect children."  Really?  In a recent article the Phoenix New Times (2) even points out staggering numbers to the contrary.  Sure Napolitano gave "...more money, more training for caseworkers, more new programs to reach at-risk families..." but how well is that protecting our children?  Phoenix New Times points out "...even more children in Arizona [are] dying from maltreatment than before Napolitano took office..."  That Napolitano removed children "...before the agency had the infrastructure in place to handle them...  ...there were only about 6,200 children in foster care when she took office; by June 2006, there were a staggering 10,166...  ... and so the influx of foster kids meant even more work for a staff that was already grossly overburdened..."  But is seems like Napolitano has the idea that the kid should be taken as quick as possible just in case noted when she gave a "...public directive to err on the side of safety."  It has only recently been stated in the CPS report that in the last six months we have finally removed less kids since Ms. Napolitano took office, but it is still far "...more than in the last period under [former Governor] Hull."  Even the workers say "...they're too busy to do their job properly."  Are the children safer?

The Republic also states that when she began dealing with the border issue "...Napolitano began sending invoices to Washington in a futile, but symbolic and necessary effort to prod the federal government..."  Futile?  Ok, then do something.  And...  That sounds about right.  But for her record and her new stance on the border.  I remember Napolitano wanting to give illegal immigrants driver licenses.  I remember Napolitano denouncing a border fence by saying "You show me a 50-foot wall and I'll show you a 51-foot ladder at the border. That's the way the border works..."  But that was a long time ago, and I am sure things have changed since then.  Wait, that's right!!!  It has actually been less than a year since she said that.  Less than a year!!!  She admitted recently that she would still vote no for a fence.  Now "...Congressman Duncan Hunter of California, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee..." points out "...Janet Napolitano has said two conflicting things about border fences -- first, that they don't work, and second, that the California fence has worked so well that it has driven border crossers into Arizona."image from http://azgovernor.gov/BioJN.asp  I have heard this mentioned infrequently and it deserves to be noted but if you look at Napolitona's record on the border issue, it has only been something she has addressed within the last year.  Not even a year.  She started to make some type of effort earlier this year, after January of February.  It wasn't until this years 'state of the state' address that she even took steps to provide for our border problem.  In 2005's 'state of the state' address she repeatedly stated how it wasn't our responsibility but the government, Washington.  This may be true but if they aren't doing anything, someone should step up and fill the gap till Washington gets in line with the rest of us.  2004's 'state of the state' address only references how considerable attention was given to homeland security, the alert was "orange" and that we conducted the "...first-in-the-nation border security exercise..." "Border" is never mentioned in her 2003 'state of the state' address.  Check it out, you may come to the same conclusion that I have come to.  She has only concerned herself with the border in the past year to garner more votes in this upcoming general election.  I haven't lived in Arizona my whole life but for the last 10+ years I have lived here there has always been a problem with the border.  Unfortunately it has gotten graver since.  I think her record is deplorable on the border, especially knowing that this is how it has been handled since an event such as September 11, 2001.

The Republic also talks about Janet's vetoes and that they have protected us from "...measures detrimental to the state..."  With Napolitano breaking veto records, would you call "...measures to require an expanded National Guard deployment along the border, create a new tax break for companies' donations for private school scholarships and tighten an existing law requiring parental consent for minors to have abortions..."  detrimental to the state?  They sound non-detrimental to me.  They sound like good measures in fact.  And those vetoes were in the last year.image from Len Munsil website

And this is only touching on a few of the discrepancies on the Republic's recommendation.

Has Napolitano really "...built an impressive record of accomplishments"?  "On Nov. 7..." is "...Janet Napolitano...  ...the clear choice for the future"?

Fortunately, the Arizona Republic allowed Len Munsil to give his reasons as to why Napolitano isn't the clear choice for the future (2).  It's where Munsil gives his take on her real "...record of accomplishments."  It is an quick article worth reading.

~tohu vavohu

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

time is of the upmost importance

Posted by tohu.vavohu on Thursday, October 26, 2006 3:58:42 PM
For many reasons, there usually is a surge in political campaigning during the last few weeks before an election.  One reason is because it is the time when undecided voters start making decisions of who and what they are going to vote for.  Many voters that have a political affiliation and voters that stay informed have already made up their minds of who they are going to vote for, and this decision was made weeks or months ago.  Undecided voters are now saying to themselves, "If I am going to vote in the coming election, then I better see who I might want to vote for."  It's time to really start spreading the word about who you are going to vote for, to educate those who haven't been following the news.

There is as little as 8 days remaining till the general election on November 7th.  And come November 7th, do you know where to go and where to tell others to go?  And since the U.S. Supreme Court thankfully overturned the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, you are going to need to take your id (identification)!  (Maybe a blog later on the 9th Circuit)

You don't think this election is important or that your vote doesn't matter?  Think again, it does matter and there are people out there that recognizes this fact, hoping to play on your emotions to acquire your vote one way or for you to not vote at all.  I received a phone call this last week that reluctantly i am thankful I missed.  You will see why.  As far as I know, from the message passed on to me, they didn't say who supported the call.  They apparently asked for me by name, but after finding out I was not available, told the person taking the message that I should vote no on Prop 107, the 'protect marriage' amendment, and that I should check out noProp107.com for the real facts about it.  If I was present, I would have loved to carry on an intelligent conversation with them to see their reasoning so I could provide it to the public, but unfortunately, i didn't.  People are aware out there of the real issues that are concerning the public of Arizona.  They know this is a button worth pushing but they want it pushed a different way.  You need to take a stance if you agree that Prop 107 should be passed, spread the word to other potential voters, giving them a well based argument.  This is not a time to sit on the fence hoping for the best.  You, and other like minded individuals will make the decision for Arizona, our state; giving the hope for the best.  If you fail to vote, this proposition for amendment of our constitution to protect the union of one man and one woman will fail.  The choice is yours.

Not only did I receive a call about Prop 107 but i received a call the other day that said it was sponsored by the democratic party.  They asked "if the election were held today, who would you most likely vote for, Jim Pederson or Jon Kyl?"  I answered without hesitation, "Jon Kyl."  Then they asked, "if the election were held today, who would you most likely vote for, Janet Napolitano or Len Munsil?"  Without taking a second breath, i answered, "Len Munsil."  Then I was met with "thank you."  *click*  That was the extent of the call.  Do you see who they focused on?  There was no more of an extension of the discussion.  No questions about other candidates for office, no questions about the proposed propositions on the ballot.  Not even a question about J.D. Hayworth who is running a vigourous campaign against Harry Mitchell.  Probably in par with the campaign Jon Kyl has had to wage against Jim Pederson.  If not in par, it has been a tough one.  They know that votes matter and they wanted to see how Joe Public would vote.  And where are they saying the votes matter?  In the Governor race and the U.S. Senate race.  This should be a clear picture to you.  If you want your voice to matter, vote.  I am sure that from this call, they have data that they can make into a strategy for the week before the general election, November 7th, and remember the call was from the democratic party.

Don't vote and judges like those that sit on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will continue to be elected by those that are liberal minded.  Activist judges that will basically say that you don't know what you really want so we are going to take away what the majority of you voted on.  That you are wrong.  That they know better than you.  It won't be up to you and your local legislator to make a decision, it will ultimately be a judge that sits in San Francisco.  Hundred of miles, and for other readers, thousands of miles away from your state and elected officials.  If they don't like a states decision they will do more than pout.

Still think your vote doesn't matter?  Well if you don't think it matters they do.  And I do to.  This isn't just a call for the state of Arizona but a national call.  A call across this great nation to every state that is holding an election this November 7th.  Those associated with conservative thought are considered the silent majority.  Across the nation we should show them how silent of a majority we are.  Without a word, those of the conservative thought should mark a paper with a pen or pencil, should press their finger to a screen, should punch a hole out of a card, should mark their vote any which way it is provided in their state, in their province, and vote in record numbers for the candidates and for the issues that are important to you and us all.  It is up to me, it is up to you, it is up to like minded individuals to shape the future of this country by the people we elect and by the laws and issues we have a vote on.

If it happens that the people and the laws and issues we vote on lose, we should not pout but hold our heads up high for accepting the great honor bestowed to us to vote.  If the people and laws we voted on lose, it means one of two things.  Either those who are not of the conservative thought were in greater number and came in droves to the election box or those of the conservative thought were apathetic and thought they made no difference in the world let alone this nation, staying home or refusing to vote.  Let us make an effort to not let the later happen.  Let's make an effort to drive the misinformation out and inform as many as we can what really matters to you and to this United States of America.

If the poll the Arizona Republic continues to reference is correct, Len Munsil needs your voice to carry his message.  Not only is it saying Len Munsil is behind but it says that Prop 107 "...is trailing 56 percent to 30 percent..." and "...voters also are siding with Proposition 201, a total ban on smoking in public places..." over Prop 206.  (Neither of which, Prop 201 or 206, I think should pass.  But that is another blog all together...)  One thing I would like to point out is that in the article the Republic like other liberal biased sources has decided to reference Prop 107 as the "...proposal to ban gay marriage in Arizona..."  It's either "...anti-gay..." or "...ban gay..."  Not even the noProp107.com website references the proposition as being "...anti-gay..." or "...ban gay..."  A quick glance through the website you see it repeatedly stated "...unmarried couples..." and "...domestic partners..."  A video they provide doesn't even mention the word "gay" at all.  They they do try to make an emotional argument by showing pictures of kids and the elderly and a picture of a young male and female while talking about benefits.  You don't see the word "gay" until you get to the FAQ page and even there, it is presented in conjunction with "...unmarried couples..." and "...domestic partners..."  Why?  Because they know it's not a true argument to say "...anti-gay..." and "...ban gay..."  when it encompasses all domestic partnerships, and because they know they need to present the best possible emotional argument in the front to win the battle, and it is kids, a young male and female, and the elderly.  But like Len Munsil points out, unlike "...three nationally respected pollsters..." like Zogby that have him in single digits (8.6 on Zogby as recent as Oct. 31) the Republic has chosen a poll from the Cronkite-Eight (ASU/KAET-TV telephone poll) that not only has him down by 43 points but has the Protect Marriage Amendment down by 26 points.  Len notes that this poll gives a 40 point difference from other polls on the Prop 107 numbers, an amendment that "...has passed in 20 other states..."  This poll is from the same pollsters that had Len Munsil horribly behind in the primaries when he made a sufficient win by beating Mike Harris by 45 points and won the whole election by 11 points.  Something smells fishy and you should be wary of the numbers being thrown at you.  And if they are true, then they should spark a fire in you or under you to reach out to others and educate them on the issues and candidates at hand so they too can make an educated choice this coming general election November 7th.

Recently the Prescott Courier endorsed Len Munsil.  They say for this general election you should ponder the following story of two people in a row boat, "If the boat springs a leak and both people in the boat say it's the other person's job and no one plugs the hole, one or both of the occupants will drown."  Like Len Munsil they link illegal immigration as a major source of Arizona's various problems and if nothing is done about it from either finger pointer, "...Arizona's schools, hospitals and other social services will drown."  The Prescott Courier believes Len Munsil "...deserves a chance to fix problems that have gone unattended far too long."

So I encourage you to make a public stance and start educating those around you on the candidates that deserve the vote and the issues that deserve the vote.  Why you?  Because your constituents in Arizona probably won't be able to see another televised debate as the Republic pointed out October 19th when "...Gov. Janet Napolitano said [the day before on] Wednesday that it's unlikely there will be a third debate..."  The reasoning behind this is "'Now we're late enough.  I think we'll probably not have another debate,' Napolitano said."  But you know that's alright, I am sure Governor Napolitano didn't get the letter from Nathan Sproul, General Consultant of Len Munsil's campaign, that was sent to Noah Kroloff (2), Janet Napolitano's Campaign Manager.  It must have been lost in the mail or Noah misplaced it, or filed it in the round filing cabinet.  And any talk that went on beforehand must have been forgotten, or the cell phone reception cut out.  You know cell phones nowadays.  Even though the letter does state that the Len Munsil camp did receive a letter from "...Ms. Napolitano’s campaign concerning three potential dates for debates..." it doesn't really matter, does it?  Or would you question the integrity of Governor Janet Napolitano?  Forgive me and the possibly overzealous statements that are most likely inaccurate (...lost in the mail...  ...misplaced it, or filed it in the round filing cabinet...  ...must have been forgotten, or the cell phone reception cut out...).  It was apparent in a press release on September 29th and another on October 3rd that Janet Napolitano's campaign still hadn't given any word to Len Munsil and the proposed debates.  I know that Len Munsil has accepted the invitation for a third debate for Thursday, November 2nd but I don't know if there is any word from Mr. Hess or Ms. Napolitano.

That, I believe, is one of the stories that the people of Arizona that are going to vote on November 7th need to know.  Having over a month ago, received letters on proposed dates for debate, she refused to answer or commit and then she has the audacity to say no more debates because "...now we're late enough..."  That is from the current Governor of the state of Arizona.  Is Governor Napolitano really speaking for you?

As Len Munsil has been unveiling the facts behind his 100 day agenda the East Valley Tribune (2) says "...Napolitano admitted she won’t be announcing any potential new innovations until a January State of the State speech, assuming she gets that far."  That is a big assumption don't you think?  Instead of allowing us and other voters (potential or otherwise) a visible platform of her stances on issues and her plans for the future of Arizona, she has decided to consider our votes assured.  I would say that is a little apathetic on Ms. Napolitano's part.  And I would say God hates apathy (webster dictionary:  "lack of interest or concern").  As well as I hate apathy.  And God hasn't granted or promised us a set number of days on this earth.  I think we are really unwise to think we determine our own stint of time on this planet or believe we are promised tomorrow; leaving God no part in it.  Who are we to say we will have it done later?  I knew this to be true but it really came to vivid reality some years ago in a conversation I had about my delaying of my duties till tomorrow.  Even the East Valley Tribune agrees that "...we deserve a governor who has boldly declared how she or he intends to tackle some of these issues and thus receives the public’s endorsement at the ballot box."  If they are concerned, shouldn't you be too?

Encourage others to listen to Len Munsil on KJZZ's segment 'Here and Now' which Len recently did another segment for.  Be aware of other possibilities to listen and encourage others to listen for Len Munsil.  He has been making the circuit.  He recently was on the Barry Young Show on KFYI 550 A.M.  I haven't been able to fine the audio on it but I do know that Len Munsil was on the same station with Joe Crummey, and they have the audio in a four parter (pt.1 - pt. 2 - pt. 3 - pt. 4).  Len Munsil was also on the Liddy and Hill show on KKNT 960 A.M. but I don't know if any audio is available on the internet.  Since it is unlikely that there will be another televised debate you can at least let people know where they can see the previous Tucson debate.  It will be re-aired on Cox Cable Channel 7, October 31st at 8:00 p.m. then a day before the election November 6th at 7:00 p.m.  If they don't have cable, set up a gubernatorial viewing party and invite them over for dinner or a snack and watch it.  Today October 31st, you could set up a tv outside, sit in those white style lawn chairs and have a viewing public party with all the trick-or-treaters.  You can also point them to some other video (2) taken from the editorial board meeting the candidates had with The Arizona Republic.

"If there must be trouble let it be in my day, that my child may have peace."
~Thomas Paine

"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, 'What should be the reward of such sacrifices?'  Bid us and our posterity, bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth?  If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace.  We ask not your counsels or arms.  Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.  May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"
~Samuel Adams

"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending against all hazards:  And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks."
~Samuel Adams

...vote...
~tohu vavohu


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

look at the lock. maybe you have the wrong key?!?

Posted by tohu.vavohu on Thursday, October 19, 2006 5:07:30 AM
Did anyone here the buzz the other day about the nations population reaching 300 million October 17th?  The U.S. Census Bureau approximates that "...net international migration is expected to add one person every 31 seconds..."  This isn't solely comprised of people legally entering into the United States, it also includes people illegally entering into the United States.  The issues with the border go beyond illegal aliens of Mexican nationality/origin, and their impact in the many areas of society.  The issue with the border also has to do with our security as a nation.  I have heard the concern for our safety and security mentioned quite a few times but it always seems to be "glossed over" or "dwarfed" in the spotlight of the glaringly obvious issue mentioned above.

On the same day that the U.S. Census Bureau estimated our population would reach 300 millon, it was reported that the Border Patrol is outgunned at the border (s1).  The article says it is the drug cartels that are facilitating the majority of opposition and they are facilitating it in a big way.  "'The cartels use automatic assault weapons, bazookas, grenade launchers and improvised explosive devices,' the House Security oversight subcommittee report said. 'In contrast, U.S. Border Patrol agents are issued 40-caliber Beretta semiautomatic pistols.'"(s1)  The House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Investigations report titled "A Line in the Sand:  Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border"(s2) is 38 pages "...summarizing its finding regarding the criminal activity and violence taking place along the Southwest border of the United States between Texas and Mexico."(s2)  I haven't heard much about this report from local news sources but Fox News covered it.Fox News covers House Committee on Homeland Security report I have only been able to skim some bits and phrases of the 38 pages but it does point out that "...cartels operate along the border with military grade weapons, technology and intelligence and their own respective paramilitary enforcers..." because "...criminal syndicates have unlimited money to buy the most advanced weapons and technology available.  The cartels monitor the movements and communications of law enforcement and use that intelligence to enable the criminals to transport their cargo accordingly."(s2)  One example of this is "...drug cartels are able to break the encryptions on Border Patrol and sheriffs' deputies' radios."(s1)

More alarming is the cartels "...are forming dangerous alliances with U.S.-based criminal gangs such as MS-13 and the Latin Kings."(s1)  Provided excerpts from the book "In Mortal Danger:  The Battle for America's Border and Security"(s3), Tom Tancredo says MS-13 "...is one of the most violent and bloodthirsty gangs ever to prey on our society."(s3)(2)(3)(4)  MS-13 isn't just a local gang, it has origins in El Salvador and their presence is spreading, reaching "...Canada, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, and more than thirty U.S. states.  Most of MS-13’s tens of thousands of members in the United States are illegal aliens."(s3)  The alliance with a gang like MS-13 provides the possibility of human, drug, and/or arms smuggling into the United States.  A MS-13 member with "...a dragon tattoo indicates the individual is involved in smuggling immigrants into the country."(s3)  "During 2005, Border Patrol apprehended approximately 1.2 million illegal aliens; of those 165,000 were from countries other than Mexico.  Of the non-Mexican aliens, approximately 650 were from special interest countries.  Special interest countries are those 'designated by the intelligence community as countries that could export individuals that could bring harm to our country in the way of terrorism.'  [Since September 11, 2001, DHS has reported a 41% increase in arrests along the Texas/Mexico border of Special Interest Aliens. p.27]  ...there is an ever-present threat of terrorist infiltration over the Southwest border.  Data indicates that there are hundreds of illegal aliens apprehended entering the United States each year who are from countries known to support and sponsor terrorism.  U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigations have revealed that aliens were smuggled from the Middle East to staging areas in Central and South America, before being smuggled illegally into the United States.  Members of Hezbollah have already entered the United States across the Southwest border."(s2)  It is being speculated that Venezuela could be "...emerging as a potential hub of terrorism in the Western Hemisphere."(s2)  "In July 2004, reports surfaced of an al Qaeda figure meeting with MS-13 in Honduras in order to secure entry routes into the United States. Reports also surfaced that, during the summer of 2004, Iraqi Shi’ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr was possibly in contact with MS-13 and/or the Farabundo Matri National Liberation Front (FMNL) in an attempt to get them to commit terrorist acts in El Salvador with the hope of forcing that government to withdraw its support for U.S. efforts in Iraq."(s3)  Tom Tancredo toward the bottom of the excerpts lays out 3 separate incidents of grave concern that are worth the reading time (right above the heading "Terrorists Among US").

Are you seeing the connection that there is a border issue involving our safety and security being in jeopardy?  Take another example, "in August 2005, a Rand Corporation analysis stated that the United States was likely to be the next country that would experience suicide bombings similar to those carried out in London against mass-transit targets the month before.  ...In November 2005, Texas congressman John Culberson released information that an Iraqi with ties to al Qaeda and on the terrorist watch list had been arrested and detained at the border."(s3)  And if that doesn't get you concerned or at least put on the defensive alert, "U.S. and Mexican authorities are well aware of suspected training camps, one of them near Matamoros, Mexico, a few miles across the Rio Grande and south of Brownsville, Texas. There are reports that a large number of people are being trained in paramilitary warfare and exotic explosives in these camps, which are operated by the Zetas, a group of former Mexican military special forces troops..."(s3)  The Zetas would have the capability of partnering with the drug cartels and engage in the smuggling of drugs, humans, or arms/weapons.  Is anyone else shocked or concerned "...that there are active Hezbollah cells in Mexico within a day’s drive of our porous border..."(s3)?  Sometime within the last year a jacket was found that had a couple patches on it.military badges found along the Texas border  It was concluded that these patches "...were not from al Qa'ida but from countries in which al Qa'ida was known to operate."(s2)  The one thing that surprises me the most about what I am writing, is that I am writing Hezbollah's name.  In fairly recent articles and talk shows I've listened to, they have said in sorts that al Qa'ida was a global terrorist group and Hezbollah was a more localized terrorist group in the Middle East.  Although Hezbollah is "localized", they are more organized, structured, and disciplined while al Qa'ida was more "loosely" based.  I really didn't think I would have ever heard about Hezbollah being closer to the United States as they reportedly are.  Or at least I thought that it was a ways off if ever.

The news article quotes U.S. Rep. Micheal T. McCaul, R-Austin, Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, as saying "We put billions of dollars in trying to stop the flow coming in, in a more reactive way, and what I'm suggesting is we also need to take a look at the other piece of this problem and identify what is the root cause and attack the root cause head on...  In my view, the head of the snake is the cartels."(s1)

again...
So what do you think?
"Votes!"
or
"More votes then Len or Barry!?!"
or
"Border"
or
insert your key to campaign here  "_____________________"

~tohu.vavohu
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"...one word answer... ...what is the key to this campaign?"

Posted by tohu.vavohu on Saturday, October 14, 2006 4:54:22 AM
Janet what?Len Munsil points out something profound in one of his recent blogs in regards to statements made at the October 10th gubernatorial debate.  If you haven't seen the debate yet, at the very end, they had about thirty seconds to fill up, and the moderator Bill Buckmaster said "...I want a one word answer from each of you, 'What is the key to this campaign?'"  Barry Hess said, "Votes!"  It caused a bit of laughter because anyone would agree, Mr. Hess would need a substantial amount of votes to become our next governor, and most everyone would agree that it is pretty unlikely that this will happen.  For him, votes just may be the key to the campaign.  Janet looked a little unsure of what to say and decided to ignore the one word criteria and rode the coattails of Mr. Hess by saying, "More votes then Len or Barry!?!"  Then giving the look of "what are you going to do?" as I have freezed in the screen capture posted.  Len Munsil said, "Border!"

Yeah, in a way, the key to a campaign is votes.  Of course to win you need to get the most votes, but this is such a superficial statement.  What a great opportunity missed by both Mr. Hess and Ms. Napolitano.  When one word could have carried the weight of the issues of a campaign, they resorted to cling to the votes.  Votes that are casted at the end of the campaign.  The issues placed at the wayside, with no real sign of being addressed.  It was a missed opportunity especially for Ms. Napolitano.  For the Governor of Arizona, that has been in office for the last three and a half years, to only think of more votes then her rivals is deplorable.  When the issues range from the border, to education, to traffic gridlock now and the future (the widening of I-17 is a 20 year plan ~ voter approved?!?), to protecting marriage, to our security, to health care, to taxes, to the possible ban of smoking, to personal rights being challenged, to property rights in question, to etc, etc, etc.  Janet has spent the majority of her time trying to defend her record on the debates and say that it's great, but to her the key is votes?  What about Arizona, the voters, the issues?  Is it like my father puts it, it all boils down to power?  She just wants the power?  votes = power?  And what if she does care about the issues?  Is it not a little troubling/saddening to think that the only thing she could think of in seventeen seconds from the question, to Barry's response, to after the laughter is "...votes..."?  That is why it is great to hear Len Munsil stay on point and have an answer to what he believes to be the key to the campaign.  The "...border...".  Now why the border?  If you have been paying attention to anything Mr. Munsil has been blogging about, or reading responses in newspapers, or listening to interviews (as I have linked to before), or watching the debates, when he talks about the problem with the border it has not been solely on the expressed illegality associated with the people crossing the border.  He has pointed out how it has encompassed a large number of the issues we face today.  Munsil says some of our education problems is a direct result of people crossing the border to settle in Arizona illegally.  Munsil has said that problems in health care and in hospitals has a direct correlation to illegal immigration.  The increase in traffic congestion has some roots in illegal immigration.  Len believes our porous border has adversely affected many things in our society.  He seized the opportunity to poignantly present the key to discussion for this campaign.  To try and sum up the concerns of his constituents.  You may not agree with his idea of what "...the key..." is, but I would hope you would agree that he believes in something more than votes.  And I hope you take that into consideration when you are weighing your campaigning candidates (singular entities), and I don't mean just for the governor race.

Our porous border is a concern and it should be.  Living in Arizona, a border state, I am aware of our direct border issues.  I have recently come across two stories I would like to share with you.  Reuters has reported, along with other news entities, that "...U.S. border police..." have "...seized a van with fake Border Patrol markings used by smugglers..."van with fake border patrol markings  When the smuggler driving the van noticed the real Border Patrol, he turned the van around and floored it to the border.  About "...100 yards from the border..." the smuggler jumped out of the van and made a mad dash on foot back across the border.  The smuggler had abandoned "...30 undocumented immigrants crammed into the back of the van..."  They have since been arrested.  (oh yeah, note:  undocumented immigrants — unpolitically correct term: illegal immigrants)  "The Tucson sector is one of the most heavily crossed stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border, and accounted for more than 40 percent of the almost 1.2 million immigrants arrested crossing the frontier in 2005."  But this type of vehicle disguise is nothing new as "...agents [have] encountered several attempts by smugglers to [use] disguised trucks to beat steadily tightening security...  ...in recent years."  Now this happened Thursday.  I haven't seen any coverage of it in our state paper or our state news agencies!?!  Huh?  Interesting.  Maybe you can help spread the word since our news can't.

A story that has been covered in at least our state newspaper, The Arizona Republic, is that "for the second time, protected land on Arizona's border with Mexico has closed to the public because of security concerns surrounding illegal immigration."Arizona refuge closed due to illegal immigration  "Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge closed 3,500 acres..." due to "violence against immigrants and law enforcement officers..."  A closure is "...usually prompted by natural disasters like floods and last 30 days or less."  But since there seems to be no end or let up to the violence "...the land will be indefinitely inaccessible to the public" and "a metal vehicle barrier on the border is under construction."  "More than 250,000 illegal immigrants entered the refuge in 2004 and 2005. Their footsteps and vehicles have cut more than 1,300 miles of trails through the native grassland, some of which could take more than a century to recover. The landscape is dotted with rusting, abandoned vehicles and tons of clothing and trash."  "Buenos Aires is the second public space that has had to close because of problems with illegal immigration."  This has an apparent affect to hunters because the Arizona Game and Fish Department have acknowledged the concern by saying they "'...hate to see areas get closed, but...  ...[they] don't want to put our hunters' lives in danger...'"  (information for photograph used:  a-borderfence0821 08/16/06 Mitch Ellis (cq), Refuge Manager at Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge surveys garbage at a staging area for undocumented border crossers at the refuge. Photo by Corinne Purtill / The Arizona Republic)

So what do you think?
"Votes!"
or
"More votes then Len or Barry!?!"
or
"Border"
or
insert your key to campaign here  "_____________________"

~tohu.vavohu
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

when where you going to tell me?

Posted by tohu.vavohu on Saturday, October 14, 2006 4:26:48 AM
Janet madDid anyone catch the October 5th Arizona gubernatorial debate?  I heard, and I don't know how true this is but when the kick off for the race began, Janet's advisors told her she needed to smile more.  That her dead panned look didn't carry well with the public.  As you can see to the left, she forgot.  It was actually my favorite part of the debate.  If you look at the video again, take the scroll bar to the 50:47 position.  One second later you will see the face to the left.  And she keeps this dead panned look for about 4 seconds.  The camera didn't go off her for all that time.  I wouldn't be surprised if the look would have continued if the camera had stayed on her.

Anyone know about the other gubernatorial debate that occurred October 10th in Tucson?  Well if you haven't been perusing Len Munsil's site and haven't signed up to get e-mail updates from Len's camp (you can sign up directly on the front of his webpage), you might not have.  I heard about it when I was reading the Valley & State section of the Arizona Republic.  They had a 3" x 1" square giving the details.Janet happy  But unfortunately it was only covered on the local Tucson PBS channel KUAT-TV.  But fortunately for us, KUAT has embraced the technological age and have posted the video for our viewing pleasure.  I will warn you that if you choose to view it with Quicktime, it will take forever and a day to load.  Also if you choose to play it in your external player for Windows Media, the picture won't show at all.  At least that's what happens on my computer setup.  I resorted to staying on the page they provided, right clicked the video, went to zoom, clicked 'Full Screen', and sat back with my father enjoying the action.  Barry Hess seemed on fire.  He was a little wild and kind of sarcastic (maybe a little condescending at times).  I love libertarians.  I mean it too.  Janet brought her smile as you can see from the picture I posted.  This was captured at the very first time she was focused to on screen.  Watch the scene because she used this deep voice that fits perfect with the picture.  You'll see what I mean.  Len did a pretty good job.  It is worth a look so you can be well informed for election day November 7th.  Now if you are thinking that you don't have time to watch the video because it is about a hour long, then what are you doing Sunday, October 15th at 3 p.m.?  They will rebroadcast the debate on the radio on KUAZ-AM/FM.  I'll let you know as best and as soon as I can of any other televised debates.  If I remember right, there should be one more.  Also, keep your eye out for the local debates that I know Barry Hess and Len Munsil are attending with Janet absent (the last I heard.)

Janet mad 2Whoops!  She forgot to keep the smile.  I must be honest, this was about the only time in the debate that she had the "mean look" going with the scowling eyebrows.  It was towards the end of the debate right before their closing statements.

Stay informed,
~tohu.vavohu
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

hold your horses!

Posted by tohu.vavohu on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 5:32:04 AM
That concludes old correspondence and marks the beginning of posts specifically to this blog. Please have patience. It will take some time to get back up to date. And look forward to a mass posting of stories/articles. I haven't typed up anything since the 6th of October and I have a couple of other stories that date previous to the 6th I'm trying to get to. I may be putting a weekly newsletter together to be sent out highlighting my weeks blogs for easy access to the stories you would find interesting. It would highlight just the previous weeks blog and a brief description of the story so you can click and choose. But that is still in the works stage/area. We will see when I get to that stage. I may have you send an e-mail requesting to be added to a list for the newsletter updates. But like I said, that it still in the works. We'll cross that bridge when I can come to it.

till then,
~tohu.vavohu
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

how many pennies you have left?

Posted by tohu.vavohu on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 5:20:21 AM
I told some of you in a recently sent e-mail about a clothing company that an old friend of mine runs, Ekset.  In my last e-mail I said if you had some pennies laying around they were having a sale.  Well, if you have some pennies still left over or you haven't counted them yet, the sale has been extended to their ink collection.  The ink collection has several good designs.  My two favorite designs would be the Sparrow shirt and the Koi shirt.  Unfortunately these sales have been for the men's line, but if you have pennies waiting for the girl's line to be included in a sale extravaganza, your in luck, it has just been added.  Like I said last time, if you have enough pennies laying around you can even be entered to win a car.
Can you do Ekset a favor?  Me too?  (maybe buy some and...) Spread the word to people you know about these excellent sales that are going on?  For those of you that have an account, Ekset is even on MySpace.

Originally sent 10/6/2006
www.ekset.com  (help a brother out)  Fantastic clothing at fantastic pricing.

~tohu.vavohu
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

line of sight

Posted by tohu.vavohu on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 5:15:15 AM
Anyone see the still photo of J.D. Hayworth in cross hairs?  espressopundit.com provided this still photo from Harry Mitchell's campaign television ad.  Hayworth was on Hannity & Colmes to discuss it.  And Fox & Friends did a spot on it as well.  espressopundit.com notes that this was all done with the power of the blog.  He thinks Fox & Friends have turned into espressopundit fans since there was no "...mainstream intermediary" to get this story out.

Originally sent 10/6/2006
espressopundit.com brings something interesting to the forefront.  It's a question of decency.

~tohu.vavohu
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

have your likeness etched in... ...polyresin?

Posted by tohu.vavohu on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 5:10:48 AM
Here's something on the lighter side:  In the Arizona Republic they had a story about a bobblehead company out in Little Blue, MO.  This is awesome.  Not only have they done bobbleheads for different promotions, different companies, and for different reasons, but they can make one for yourself or as a gift for someone else.  Check it out at thebobblehead.com.  You send in a picture of the subject you want to make into a bobblehead, providing the front and side view.  Or contact them to work through an idea without any picture.  Approval of the concept drawing moves you along to the approval of the clay sculpture.  After that you approve the paint master and shortly thereafter you have your own bobblehead.  It is a little bit pricey at $410 but apparently that is some pretty good, competitive pricing for what it's worth.  And how can you put a price on a one of a kind, unique bobblehead?  You can, but indulge me for a bit.  I wonder how one would turn out for me.  I would love to see them get my huge beard and my mohawk on a bobblehead.  How awesome would that be?  Got a business?  Work with them on a concept of a bobblehead to promote it.  Awesome!!!  Really, how cool is this?  That's a rhetorical question because it is mondo cool.  I have a couple ideas knocking around of several bobbleheads I would love to do.

Originally sent 10/6/2006
A bobblehead for you too.

~tohu.vavohu
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

for your viewing pleasure

Posted by tohu.vavohu on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 5:07:49 AM
Anyone catch the gubernatorial debate for the office of Governor on PBS last night?  Anyone not catch it?  Would you like to check it out?  If you do want to watch it, your in luck.  The clean elections website has posted the debate (2).  This is great, the Horizon website doesn't post things this quickly.  I am glad I could provide it so soon.  I'll try and inform you on the next televised debate.

Originally sent 10/6/2006
Video of Arizona gubernatorial debate.

~tohu.vavohu
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

turn on your radio

Posted by tohu.vavohu on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 5:06:06 AM
I was checking and researching some information on our local npr (national public radio) station kjzz 91.5 fm.  I had heard something over the weekend and wanted to see if it had been posted so I could use it at a later time.  Anyway, on the front page is had an announcement that Len Munsil will appear on their 'Here and Now' segment.  If you have access to a radio between 11 and 12, a great station for an hour to listen to will be kjzz 91.5 fm.  (Or you could try and get someone to record it.)  I am pretty sure you might know a couple people that would like to know as well.  Well, get on the phone or e-mail them and let them know.

Update:
come again?
So did anyone catch Len Munsil on Arizona's local station kjzz 91.5 fm?  If you missed it, don't fret, you can still listen to the interview.  NPR has finally done a service to the community.  I thought it was a very good interview.  Len Munsil did an outstanding job.  But I want you to pay close attention to something when you are listening to it.  Right after Steve Goldstein is finished with the interview of Len Munsil, he gives a little intro to the next segment of the show in which they will be be discussing 3 of the 19 propositions on the local Arizona ballot this election.  The first one he brings up is Prop 107 and labels it as the "...anti-gay marriage initiative..."  Wow!!!  Snuck in a low punch there.  Jab!  Jab!  To hear it quickly, click the 'listen to the interview' link and move the curser to about the halfway position between halfway and three fourths.  Anyway, I could have sworn it was the protect marriage initiative.  To uphold the institution of marriage.  The same institution that has been the norm for centuries.  Since the beginning of time.  I think God was the original author of this basic and fundamental concept!?!  This initiative is to amend our state constitution to say marriage is between one man and one woman, and should be recognized as such.  That it spoke against the recognition of "domestic partnerships" in all forms
(...AND NO LEGAL STATUS FOR UNMARRIED
10. PERSONS SHALL BE CREATED OR RECOGNIZED BY THIS
11. STATE OR ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS THAT IS SIMILAR
12. TO THAT OF MARRIAGE...).  It's just funny to see how, like my father puts it, they can't find the positive in a majority of things especially if they don't like a certain issue or point of view.  Liberal thought has to find or create a negative the majority of the time.  I guess in the end, npr didn't let me down.  If you know what I mean.
 
Now, the other day I pointed out how Janet Napolitano didn't show up to a debate with Len Munsil and Mr. Barry Hess.  Well, are you hoping you will have the chance to see Janet, Len, and Barry actually go head to head to head in a debate?  You will!!!  It will be on Arizona's KAET Channel 8, today, Thursday, October 5, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.  Don't miss it.  Support Taco Bell or In-N-Out and grab dinner, send the kids to bed early (or include them in the viewing and then take time to apply learning).  Get a babysitter for them if you need to.  If your not going to be home, set the VCR.  Since that might be archaic for some of you, set your DVR systems.  It is crucially important to understand were each candidate for governor is coming from and where they stand so you can make an educated decision on the facts this general election, November 7, 2006.
(Update:  A link to the video for the gubernatorial debate will be listed under it's own blog.  Look for link there.)

Originally sent 10/3/2006  —  Update 10/5/2006
Len Munsil having an interview on local npr station, the link to the audio, interesting point in interview, and notification of gubernatorial debate on local pbs station.

I'm mine own personal cheerleading squad and I want a new captain,
~tohu.vavohu

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I'm sorry... ...you're going to have to speak up for us to hear you.

Posted by tohu.vavohu on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 5:00:59 AM
On Governor Janet Napolitano's website it says "Governor Napolitano is committed to the values that matter most to Arizonans..."  I would think that she would want to inform as many people as she could of what values she's commited to and her views on those values.  But why was she not present (2) at the most recent debate?  How committed is she?  Would you say a value that matters, especially in the time of elections, is a clear concise understanding of a canidate for governor's stance on the issues and values associated with the state?  Does this really show running the government "...efficiently and responsibly"?  Where is she for the voters of the coming election?  Or do you think "Governor Napolitano has demonstrated that what matters is smart government, efficient government, and effective government"?

Forgot to add a couple links to the last letter:
Who's voice is representing you (2)?

Originally sent 10/3/2006
Current Governor Janet Napolitano not present at a debate.

~tohu.vavohu

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) |