Records provide new look at Ariz. shooting spree

By JACQUES BILLEAUD and BRIAN SKOLOFF Associated Press
Posted: 03/27/2013 03:21:05 AM CDT
Updated: 03/28/2013 05:37:11 AM CDT

PHOENIX—An erratic Jared Loughner walked into a convenience store with an urgent message for the clerk: "I need a ride to Safeway."

It was Saturday morning, and then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' meet-and-greet started at 10 a.m. As he waited for his taxi, Loughner nervously paced around the store and made several trips to the bathroom, gazing anxiously at a clock. "Nine twenty-five. I still got time," he said.

Loughner arrived and got in line with others waiting to meet the congresswoman. He opened fire about 10 minutes later as screams of "gun" rang out through crowd. Within moments, Giffords lay bleeding on the sidewalk with 11 others who were wounded. Six people were killed.

Almost everyone who crossed paths with Loughner in the year before the shootings described a man who was becoming unhinged.

He got fired from a clothing store and thrown out of college, shaved his head and got tattoos of bullets on his shoulder. He showed up at the apartment of a boyhood friend with a Glock 9 mm pistol, saying he needed it for "home protection." He made dark comments about the government, and, according to one acquaintance, appeared suicidal.

His spiral into madness hit bottom on that Jan. 8 day in 2011.

The information about Loughner's mental state—and the fact that no one did much to get him help—emerged as a key theme in roughly 2,700 pages of investigative papers released Wednesday. Still, there was nothing to indicate exactly
why he targeted Giffords.

The files also provided the first glimpse into Loughner's family and a look at parents dealing with a son who had grown nearly impossible to communicate with.

"I tried to talk to him. But you can't," his father, Randy Loughner, told police. "Lost, lost and just didn't want to communicate with me no more."

His mother, Amy Loughner, recalled hearing her son alone in his room "having conversations" as if someone else were there.

Despite recommendations from Pima Community College that Loughner undergo a mental evaluation after the school expelled him, his parents never followed up.

In a statement released by the gun control advocacy group she started with her husband, Giffords said that "no one piece of legislation" would have prevented the Tucson shooting.

"However, I hope that commonsense policies like universal background checks become part of our history, just like the Tucson shootings are—our communities will be safer because of it."

While such checks may keep those with mental illnesses from obtaining guns, the 24-year-old Loughner had never been diagnosed with any conditions, meaning it's doubtful much would have stopped him from legally purchasing a weapon.

Friends and family interviewed by law enforcement after the shooting painted a picture of a young man who was deeply troubled in the weeks before the shooting.

Loughner visited Anthony George Kuck, who had known him since preschool. Kuck said he was alarmed to find he had shaved his head and was armed.

"I kicked him out of my house because he showed me his gun," Kuck said.

Kuck told police he had seen Loughner's mental state deteriorate over time, starting with drinking problems in high school, trouble with authorities and being kicked out of college.

"I know he has some crazy thoughts where he ... just believes the government is corrupt, and he has all these assumptions on things, that he doesn't really know what he's talking about," Kuck told investigators.

While he never heard him mention Giffords "he just seemed to have some kind of ... hate for government," Kuck added.

Kuck's roommate, Derek Andrew Heintz, who has known Loughner since he was about 12, said he was cooking when Loughner showed up with a gun and removed it from his belt. It was loaded with 32 rounds.

He asked Loughner why he had the weapon.

"I just want to show you,'" Loughner replied.

Loughner then left Heintz with a souvenir—one bullet.

His parents grew alarmed over his behavior on several occasions—at one point submitting him to drug-testing. The results were negative, said Amy Loughner, who was particularly worried that her son might have been using methamphetamine.

The father said his son kept journals, but they were written in an indecipherable script. Loughner bought a 12-gauge shotgun in 2008, but his parents took it away from him after he was expelled from college and administrators recommended he not own weapons.

On the day of the shooting, he and his father got in an argument, and he chased Jared Loughner away from their house. Friend Bryce Tierney told investigators Loughner called him early in the morning that day and left a cryptic voice mail that he believed was suicidal.

"He just said, 'Hey, this is Jared. Um, we had some good times together. Uh, see you later.' And that's it," Tierney said.

Onetime Loughner friend Zachary Osler explained how he worked at a sporting goods store where Loughner bought the handgun used in the shooting. He was questioned about seeing Loughner shopping there sometime before Thanksgiving and described an awkward encounter with the man.

"His response is nothing. Just a mute facial expression. And just like he, he didn't care," Osler told authorities.

News organizations seeking the records were denied access in the months after the shooting and the arrest of Loughner, who was sentenced in November to seven consecutive life sentences, plus 140 years, after he pleaded guilty to 19 federal charges.

Last month, a judge cleared the way for the release of the records after Star Publishing Company, which publishes the Arizona Daily Star in Tucson, joined by Phoenix Newspapers Inc., which publishes The Arizona Republic, and KPNX-TV, sought their release. The judge said Loughner's fair-trial rights were no longer on the line now that his criminal case has resolved.

Loughner's guilty plea enabled him to avoid the death penalty. He is serving his sentence at a federal prison medical facility in Springfield, Mo., where he was diagnosed with schizophrenia and forcibly given psychotropic drug treatments to make him fit for trial.

Loughner's attorney, Judy Clarke, didn't return a call seeking comment Wednesday. There was no listed telephone phone number for Randy and Amy Loughner.

Arizona's chief federal judge and a 9-year-old girl were among those killed in the rampage. Giffords was left partially blind, with a paralyzed right arm and brain injury. She resigned from Congress last year.

Giffords intern Daniel Hernandez described how constituents and others were lining up to see Giffords on the morning of the shooting. He helped people sign in and recalled handing the sheet on a clipboard to Loughner.

"The next thing I hear is someone yell, 'Gun,'" said Hernandez, who rushed to tend to Giffords' gunshot wound to the head.

"She couldn't open her eyes. I tried to get any responses from her. It looked like her left side was the only side that was still mobile," Hernandez told authorities. "She couldn't speak. It was mumbled. She was squeezing my hand."

Hernandez explained how he had some training as a nurse and first checked for a pulse.

"She was still breathing. Her breathing was getting shallower," he said. "I then lifted her up so that she wasn't flat on the ground."

When he was arrested at the scene, Loughner was wearing peach-colored foam earplugs and had two loaded magazines in his left front pocket for the Glock he used in the shootings.

Hours later, he was polite and cooperative as detectives began their initial interview.

As Loughner sat in restraints in an interview room, the conversation was confined mainly to small talk. Little was said over the first four hours. Loughner asked if he could use the restroom, then at one point complained he felt sore.

"I'm about ready to fall over," he said.

Today, Giffords is still recovering. She struggles to speak in complete sentences and often walks with the help of her husband.

In a January interview on ABC News, she said "daggers" to recount her tense, face-to-face encounter with Loughner at his sentencing. When asked to describe his mental illness, she said one word: "sad."

———

Associated Press writers Michael R. Blood and Justin Pritchard in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

American labor leader and co-founder of the United Farm Workers (formerly known as the National Farm Workers Association) Cesar Chavez (1927 – 1993) speaks at a rally, Coachella, California, mid to late 1970s. (Photo by Cathy Murphy/Getty Images)

Immigration reform revives Cesar Chavez’s icon status

by Erika L. Sánchez
6:39 am on 03/28/2013


The closest thing Latinos have to a national holiday is Cesar Chavez’s birthday on March 31st. Cesar Chavez’s birthday is already celebrated in ten states, and President Barack Obama not only has supported making it a national holiday, but recently named a national park on his behalf.

This week, children will be learning about the labor leader’s legacy in schools, and marches have been organized from California to Pennsylvania to honor the 86th anniversary of his birth and in support of immigration reform.

He has become the hero, the leader for Latinos pushing for immigration reform.

“He stood up and got people to believe in themselves,” says Paul Chavez, his son and president of the Cesar Chavez Foundation.

On March 23rd and 24th Chavez led marches in Yakima, Washington and several California cities. Thousands of people– families affected by immigration reform, farm workers, and social activists– participated.

RELATED: Opinion: Cesar Chavez’s son on why the Colorado River must be saved

Chavez believes his father’s memory is thriving because of the ongoing immigration debate and country’s changing demographics. “People look for someone who they can relate to,” he says. He points out that his father, like many undocumented immigrants, came from humble beginnings and struggled throughout his life. But despite his hardships, he was able to lead and inspire.

Matthew Garcia, professor of history and author of “From the Jaws of History: The Triumph and Tragedy of Cesar Chavez and the Farm Worker Movement,” says that although Chavez was a far more complicated man than he was given credit for, Latinos have built up Cesar Chavez’s legacy because of their need for a hero. “We need our Martin Luther King, too,” he says.

For Marcos Muñoz, a former United Farm Workers organizer, Cesar Chavez was a very inspirational figure who transformed his life. After immigrating from Coahuila, Mexico when he was 13 years old, Muñoz became a migrant worker in California where he earned two to three dollars a day. In 1965 he was picking grapes when a group of people called him in to an office. There, they told him about the strike and explained how the union would benefit migrant workers. One of the people in the group was Cesar Chavez. From that day forward, Muñoz was involved in the movement and traveled all over the country to educate people about the boycott and working conditions of migrant workers.

“We didn’t have hope in our lives. We were scared,” he says. “But I found faith. It changed my life and my way of thinking.”

Like Chavez, Muñoz also believes that the renewed interest in Cesar Chavez’s life may also be due to the current immigration debate. “Things have gotten better in many ways, but it’s not enough. We have to do what he wasn’t able to finish,” he says.

Though Chavez has become a symbol for immigration reform, many point out that Chavez was not in favor of expanding immigration and believed that undocumented immigrants could pose a threat to unionized workers. Chavez and the UFWs even reported some undocumented immigrants to the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

RELATED: Women launch effort to name a street after Cesar Chavez

Regardless of the complicated history, Chavez is still mobilizing Latinos 20 years after his death, including many young undocumented people who are looking for a leader, representative or symbol they can relate to.

“Now in these difficult times, with Latinos being victimized, it’s especially important to remember that we’ve been here for many years,” Chavez says. “We come and work in the most difficult conditions that other folks refuse to do, and yet we still have tremendous optimism in this great land.”

Back to the economy, Obama pushes infrastructure plan in Miami

By Carrie Dann and Shawna Thomas, Political Reporters, NBC News

Susan Walsh / AP

President Barack Obama tours a tunnel project at the Port of Miami, Friday, March 29, 2013, while promoting a plan to create jobs by attracting private investment in highways and other public works.

At the end of a week dominated by issues of immigration and gun control legislation, President Barack Obama on Friday focused on the economy, appearing in Miami to press Congress to pass new tax incentive and federal spending proposals he says will help attract more investment in the nation’s infrastructure.
He asked the audience at the Port of Miami Terminal: “What are we waiting for?” He continued, “There’s work to be done. There’s workers who are ready to do it. Let’s prove to the world there’s no better place to do business than right here in the United States of America and let’s get started rebuilding America.”
Obama said that the country is still dotted with dated bridges, rail lines, roads and ports that hamper trade and endanger the public.
“We don’t have to accept that for America,” he said. “We can do better. We can build better.”
New in the president’s remarks was a proposal for an expanded bond program and changes in the taxation rules for foreign investment, both designed to encourage private companies to invest in infrastructure projects. Obama also proposed an expansion of current infrastructure spending programs to the tune of $4 billion, and he reiterated his call for a “National Infrastructure Bank,” which he first proposed in 2011.
The administration points to the backdrop of the Miami port as evidence of the potential success of such projects. A tunnel being built to alleviate congestion – funded by a combination of public and private partnerships – has created work for 500 employees and over 6,000 contractors and subcontractors, the White House said.
Recommended: Inhofe, Rubio join effort vowing to filibuster gun legislation
A senior advisor said earlier Friday that the combined cost of the proposals is $21 billion, adding that the measures are not expected to increase the deficit.  More details on the cost of the projects will be clear when the president releases his budget on April 10.
Each of the three proposals would require legislative action from Congress, a heavy lift at a time when Republican lawmakers have little appetite for increasing spending.
On Friday, Obama dinged Republicans for disapproving of blanket “government spending” but privately lobbying for infrastructure projects that create jobs – and boost their political popularity – at home.
“I know that members of Congress are happy to weclome projects like this in their districts,” Obama said. “I know because I’ve seen them at the ribbon cuttings.”
Despite the economic focus, the president also touched on the other major legislative pushes that loom after Congress’s Easter recess.
“We’re going to fix our economy,” he said, listing his administration’s priorities at the conclusion of his remarks. “We’re going to fix our immigration system, we are going to make sure that our young people are getting a great education, we’re going to prevent them from being victims of gun violence, and we are going to make sure that everybody in this country has a fair shot and is doing their fair share.”

Zimmerman’s ‘utterly’ lame defense

Posted by Jonathan Capehart on March 27, 2013 at 11:19 am

(Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images)

As I wrote in my last post, Robert Zimmerman Jr.’s tweet linking Trayvon Martin to accused baby killer De’Marquise Elkins was so outrageous that Mark O’Mara told me it was “absurd” without hesitation. The lawyer for George Zimmerman, the killer of unarmed Trayvon Martin, also told the Daily Beast that the electronic missive was “wholly inappropriate.”
What Zimmerman did was show alleged photos of Trayvon and De’Marquise in middle-finger poses. But if the pictures are bad, the words accompanying them were worse.

.@AnthonyCumia – Alleged FB pics of 13mo old Antonio Santiago’s alleged killer & #TrayvonMartin Side-by-Side #uncanny pic.twitter.com/gAoNLYINIR

We’ve been down this road before. Fake pictures purporting to be Trayvon have littered the Internet. Supporters of George Zimmerman have used them to paint the unarmed 17-year-old as a wannabe thug who deserved to die. They have used Trayvon’s suspension from school for being found with an empty marijuana baggie to bolster their point. As if such a thing made Trayvon unlike any other teenager in this adolescent rite of passage. The persistence of the negative view of Trayvon was evident in a tweet reacting to my last post. “[I]sn’t Trayvon Marton [sic] that drug dealing juvenile delinquent with a history of violence?” asked @GameCocksKid.
But a later tweet by Zimmerman, as he battled with critics (and basked in support), actually did make sense — just not in the way he intended. “And character is UTTERLY relevant in self-defense cases,” he tweeted six hours after his original message. If character is utterly relevant when it comes to Trayvon, then it is especially relevant to George Zimmerman.
The neighborhood watch volunteer who wanted to be a cop was arrested in July 2005 for “resisting officer with violence” and “battery of law enforcement officer.” Zimmerman got into a scuffle with cops questioning a friend for alleged underage drinking. Upon entering an alcohol education program, the charges were reportedly reduced and then waived. The next month in 2005, Zimmerman’s former fiance sought a restraining order against him because of domestic violence. Zimmerman sought a restraining order against her in return. Both were granted.
An unarmed teenager with no documented history of violence lost his life to a man who has a documented history of violence. If “character is utterly relevant in self-defense cases,” as Zimmerman says, then his brother is behind the eight-ball.

Home state politics inform Dem senators' gay marriage hesitance

By Ali Weinberg, Producer, NBC News

Nine Democratic senators have declined to back same-sex marriage amid a wave of announcements by their colleagues this week in support of marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples.

The political climates in each of these senators' home states -- where some of these Democrats must stand for re-election in 2014 -- helps explain why so many of them seem inclined to stay mum on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Mark Pryor, Arkansas

WHAT HE’S SAID: Per the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Pryorspokesman Michael Teague said that Pryor, whose seat Republicans are already circling as a pick-up opportunity next fall, has a “moral belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.”
WHAT’S GOING ON IN THE STATE: Wednesday, the Arkansas House passed a resolution reaffirming its opposition to same-sex marriage; the state approved an amendment barring same-sex marriage in 2004, which passed with 75 percent percent of the vote.
A University of Arkansas poll found in October 2012 that 18 percent of the state's likely voters supported same-sex marriage and just 20 percent supported civil unions. 55 percent of Arkansans opposed any legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship.

Mary Landrieu, Louisiana

WHAT SHE’S SAID: "According to the U.S. Constitution, marriage and family law are reserved for the states," Landrieu, who will likely face several gay marriage opponents in her battle for re-election, said, per the New Orleans Times-Picayune. "The people of Louisiana have made clear that marriage in our state is restricted to one man and one woman.”
The New Orleans-based Forum for Equality, which advocates for same-sex marriage rights, acknowledgedthe “political realities that exist in Louisiana” and said they were glad Landrieu supported legislation that bans discrimination based on sexual orientation (the Employment Non-Discrimination Act).
WHAT’S GOING ON: Louisiana passed a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in 2004, with 78 percent of the state's voters in favor of it.

Heidi Heitkamp, North Dakota

WHAT SHE’S SAID: "I think that this is a state issue," Heitkamp said during her 2012 campaign, according to local affiliate KVRR. "I think that this is a distraction…here we go again talking about things that aren't about jobs and improving the economy and getting this country moving."
WHAT’S GOING ON: North Dakotans approveda gay marriage ban in 2004, with 73 percent approving of the ban versus 27 disapproving. The state also has the lowest percentage of residents who openly identify themselves as LGBT, according to a six-month Gallup survey released in February 2013.

Joe Manchin, West Virginia

WHAT HE’S SAID: Manchin still supports the Defense of Marriage Act, while his Democratic Senate counterpart, Jay Rockefeller, announced his opposition Monday, according to the Charleston Daily Mail.
Manchin was also the only Senate Democrat to vote against a bill that included the repeal of the Pentagon’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in 2010. That bill failed, but he missed the vote on a subsequent, standalone version of the repeal, citing a family obligation.
WHAT’S GOING ON: West Virginia passed a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman in 2000. A constitutional ban on gay marriage was thwarted by Democrats in the House of Delegates in February 2010, and another attempt in 2012 also failed.
One Democratic delegate, John Doyle, introduced a civil unions bill in February 2012. He said at the time, “I'm not going to introduce a gay marriage bill simply because it has no chance of passing the West Virginia Legislature. We just might be able to get a civil union bill through, so I'm going to give it a shot.”

Tim Johnson, South Dakota

WHAT HE’S SAID:  The office of the retiring senator toldthe Huffington Post this week that “he has not changed his position on marriage equality,” which amounted to a “no,” the office clarified. Politico reportedthat Johnson’s spokesman noted that Johnson now opposes DOMA.
WHAT’S GOING ON: South Dakota passed a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in 2006 by a relatively narrow margin, 52 percent of the vote. According to the LA Times, the state was divided at the time: “A poll released Friday by the Sioux Falls Argus Leader found a virtual deadlock; 47 percent of likely voters oppose the amendment, 46 percent support it.”
South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley was one of 19 state attorneys general to signan amicus brief in support of the states’ rights position in the Prop 8 case. But a former South Dakota senator, Larry Pressler, who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, joinedthe amicus brief signed by Republicans in support of same-sex marriage.

Advertise | AdChoices

Joe Donnelly, Indiana

WHAT HE’S SAID: Donnelly told Fort Wayne affiliate WANE last week that he is still against same-sex marriage but supports giving them all the benefits of heterosexual couples.
WHAT’S GOING ON: Lawmakers in Indiana, which currently bans same-sex marriage by statute, are planning a vote on a proposed ban but will wait to hear what the Supreme Court has to say on the subject before putting it up as a ballot referendum.
But a ban might not make it past voters in 2014 – a December WISH-TV/Ball State Hoosier survey found that only 38 percent of respondents would support a ban, versus 54 percent who would oppose it. That doesn’t mean voters are ready to legalize gay marriage though, as they are split at 45 percent on each side of the issue.

Bill Nelson, Florida

WHAT HE’S SAID: “My personal preference is that marriage is between a man and a woman,” he said, according to CBS Miami.
WHAT’S GOING ON: Florida voters approved a gay marriage ban in 2008, with 62 percent in favor. But a Washington Post poll in October 2012 found that 54 percent of Florida voters thought same-sex marriage should be legal, with 33 percent in opposition.

Tom Carper, Delaware  

WHAT HE’S SAID: Carper’s office emphasized the positions he’s taken in support of same-sex couples. His team wroteto the Huffington Post, “Sen. Carper was proud to support Delaware’s efforts to enact Civil Union legislation and earlier this month he joined 211 of his Congressional colleagues in co-signing the Amicus brief that urges the Supreme Court to invalidate Section 3 of DOMA.”
WHAT’S GOING ON IN THE STATE: Delaware, which approved civil unions in 2011, could soon see a same-sex marriage bill, Gov. Jack Markell (D) predicted Tuesday: “Our legislative session ends in June. I’d say at this point, there’s a good chance a bill will hit my desk. I can’t be certain with how the legislation goes,” he told CBS Philadelphia.
Public opinion in Delaware matches the latest national numbers (NBC/WSJ’s December 2012 poll found that 51 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage). A poll conducted by Global Strategy Group on behalf of pro-gay marriage Equality Delaware found that 54 percent of Delawareans favored legislation granting equal marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples.

Bob Casey, Pennsylvania

WHAT HE’S SAID: Casey, who was re-elected in 2012, “has supported civil unions and he is closely following the debate around DOMA,” his spokesman, John Rizzo, toldPennLive this week. “He intends to thoroughly review any legislation on this when it comes before the Senate.”
WHAT’S GOING ON: Progressive organizations say their supporters bombarded Casey’s office with 10,000 calls and emails Wednesday urging him to support same-sex marriage.
A Franklin and Marshall poll found earlier this year that 52 percent of registered voters in Pennsylvania supported same-sex marriage and 41 percent opposed it, a swing of 19 percentage points since 2006.

The Daily Caller obtains Trayvon Martin’s tweets

6:25 PM 03/26/2012

David Martosko

Executive Editor

• 65
  inShare
• 2

T
he Daily Caller has obtained a compilation of the late Trayvon Martin’s tweets.
The social media scan, executed on PeopleBrowsr and supplied to TheDC by the individual who performed the search, contains tweets from the last month of Martin’s life, dating to the beginning of 2012.
Martin tweeted under the handle “NO_LIMIT_NIGGA,” an account that was closed shortly after his death.

The image attached to the Twitter account when Martin died matches one that has been widely distributed. That photograph of Martin depicts him smiling, gold-toothed, into a camera in front of an electronic dartboard.
TheDC is publishing these tweets in exactly the form it received them, with the sole exception of partially redacting Martin’s telephone number in one tweet.


Update: Shortly after TheDC published this archive Monday, Trayvon Martin’s account suddenly reappeared on Twitter. It was offline for at least one week.
Update, Tuesday, 12 noon: The Twitter account has been yet again disabled.
UPDATE 3/29/2012: TheDC has identified a second Twitter handle associated with Trayvon Martin. Writing under the name “T33ZY TAUGHT M3” in December, Martin tweeted: “Plzz shoot da #mf dat lied 2 u!”

Read Trayvon Martin’s last tweets:

86809463 Trayvon Martin s NO LIMIT NIGGA Tweets the Daily Caller by Peggy Satterfield

PAUL: A duty to preserve the Second Amendment

The right to bear arms ‘shall not be infringed’

By Sen. Rand Paul

-

The Washington Times

Friday, March 29, 2013

When Congress reconvenes next month, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is expected to bring gun control back to the Senate floor. If this occurs, I will oppose any legislation that undermines Americans’ constitutional right to bear arms or their ability to exercise this right without being subject to government surveillance.

Restricting Americans’ ability to purchase firearms readily and freely will do nothing to stop national tragedies such as those that happened in Newtown, Conn., and in Aurora, Colo. It will do much to give criminals and potential killers an unfair advantage by hampering law-abiding citizens’ ability to defend themselves and their families.Potentially on the table are new laws that would outlaw firearms and magazines that hold more than just a handful of rounds, as well as require universal “background checks,” which amount to gun registration.We are also being told that the “assault weapons” ban originally introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein is not happening. We can only hope. But in Washington, D.C., bad ideas often have a strange way of coming up again.

SEE RELATED: Gun groups promise fight as U.N. inches toward override of Second Amendment

These laws are designed to sound reasonable, but statistics have shown that gun control simply does not work.What constitutes reasonable? If limiting rounds and increasing surveillance were really the solution to curbing gun violence, why should we stop there? Because everyone knows that none of this actually curbs gun violence.

Gun control itself is unreasonable.Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the entire country — and one of the worst gun-crime rates, with more than 500 homicides last year. Compare this to Virginia, where in the past six years, gun sales went up by 73 percent, while violent gun crime fell 24 percent. The types of firearms and clips the left is currently so intent on banning are used in fewer than 2 percent of gun crimes — and how many of those crimes involve registered weapons? Few to none.

For every national tragedy that happens, there are hundreds if not thousands of examples of Americans preventing similar killings from happening, thanks to the use of personal firearms. Last June, for example, a 14-year-old Phoenix boy shot an armed intruder who broke into his home while he was baby-sitting his three younger siblings. The children were home alone on a Saturday afternoon when an unrecognized woman rang their doorbell. After the 14-year-old boy refused to open the door, he heard a loud bang, which indicated that someone was trying to break into the house. The boy hurried his younger siblings upstairs and collected a handgun from his parents’ room. When the boy rounded the top of the stairs, there was a man standing in the doorway with a gun pointed at him. The boy shot at the intruder and saved the lives of his three younger siblings.

There have been would-be mass murderers who have walked into schools, churches, shopping malls, movie theaters and other public places who didn’t get very far because, thankfully, an armed citizen was nearby. There have been countless home invasions, armed robberies and other assaults in which lives were saved, thanks to citizens possessing private firearms.These stories are heroic, but they don’t become big headlines. We should all be glad that they don’t become such headlines, thanks to the unsung heroes who prevent them from becoming potential national tragedies.

For these reasons, I will oppose any attempt by President Obama, Mr. Reid or anyone else in Washington who works against Americans’ right to bear arms. Sens. Mike Lee and Ted Cruz have decided to join in this effort.We do this not only because it is right — but because it is our duty as United States senators.

When I stood up for the Fourth and Fifth Amendments during a filibuster a few weeks ago to address drones and executive power, it was not because I was partial to those amendments, important as they are. When I came into office, I took an oath to uphold the Bill of Rights.

SPECIAL COVERAGE: Second Amendment and Gun Control

I took an oath to uphold the First Amendment. I took an oath to uphold the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment reads: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It doesn’t say “might be” infringed. Nor does it say “could be” infringed. It read “shall not” be infringed. The current gun-control legislation being proposed unquestionably infringes.For these reasons, I will work diligently to stop any such gun-control legislation. Our Constitution, individual liberty and personal safety depend on it.

Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Homeland Security committees.

Congressional Bills Seek to Cut Public Scrutiny and Participation Out of Keystone XL Decision

3/26/2013

The Keystone XL pipeline is a controversial project that would transport tar sands oil (which is more corrosive than crude oil) from Canada through America's heartland to Texas, creating air, water, and public health risks in its wake. In the past two weeks, lawmakers have introduced bills in both the House and Senate to strip the decision on the Keystone XL pipeline away from the Obama administration. The bills, if passed, would short-circuit the regulatory permitting process and prevent the public from voicing their concerns about the public health and environmental risks of the pipeline.

Background

Traditionally, the process of approving trans-border pipelines (including TransCanada Corp's Keystone XL pipeline) has been handled by the State Department because the projects are international and are regulated by at least two sets of standards and laws. The U.S. regulatory process requires federal agencies to review the environmental impacts of a proposed pipeline project and to publish their assessments for public comment before a decision is made. Environmental organizations and communities living near the proposed path of the pipeline have raised significant concerns about the potential risks the proposed project presents to the health and safety of communities the pipeline will pass through.
On March 1, the State Department released its draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) on the pipeline. The public has until April 22 to comment on the environmental impact statement. President Obama is not expected to make a final decision on whether to approve the pipeline until after the State Department concludes its review process, meaning that a final decision would probably not be reached for several months.

Legislative Shortcut

However, legislators in both the House and Senate seem unwilling to wait for the review and public comment period to play out and have instead proposed bypassing the normal permitting process. On March 14, Sens. John Hoeven (R-ND) and Max Baucus (D-MT) introduced legislation (S. 582) that would enable Congress to approve the Keystone XL without President Obama's signature. The next day, Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE) introduced a similar measure (H.R. 3) in the House.
Hoeven believes the Senate bill has the support of more than 50 senators, though 60 votes would be needed for passage. Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he expects a vote on the bill by the end of May.
This congressional effort to get around the regulatory process is at odds with public opinion. A new national poll found that the majority of Americans oppose congressional intervention to approve the Keystone XL. The study, commissioned by the Center for Biological Diversity, finds that over half of Americans surveyed are concerned about the pipeline's impact on water and wildlife.
"Americans take a pretty dim view of Congress, and most don't want it anywhere near the Keystone project," said Jerry Karnas in the Center for Biological Diversity's press release. "Keystone XL is a dangerous project for wildlife, climate and our environment. It deserves to be carefully considered by those who understand the long-term impacts, not hastily decided by politicians who're easily swayed by the oil industry's army of lobbyists."
Unfortunately, this is not the first time Congress has tried to bypass the permitting process and pressure President Obama to approve Keystone XL. In late 2011, Republicans inserted language into a payroll tax cut bill that gave the president a 60-day deadline to make a decision on whether to approve the pipeline. In January 2012, at the end of the deadline, Obama rejected the Keystone XL, saying political pressure from Congress resulted in a rushed process that did not allow the State Department to gather all the information it needed to consider before approving the permit, including public comments.
In March 2012, Congress tried again when Hoeven introduced an amendment to a transportation bill (S. 1813) designed to renew funding for highway and infrastructure projects. The amendment would have fast-tracked the Keystone project and eliminated the president’s authority. It received 56 of the 60 votes required to pass and was not adopted.
The public health and safety risks associated with the Keystone XL necessitate an open permit process with public engagement and without political meddling.

Public Health and Environmental Concerns

Communities near the proposed path of the pipeline and environmentalists are concerned about the potential risks of spills and water and soil contamination to states in the Midwest and the possible health effects of increased air pollution on communities living near refineries along the Gulf. The overall effects of increased greenhouse gas emissions on climate change are also a significant concern. These stakeholders believe that the Draft SEIS significantly underestimates the environmental risks from the pipeline and are especially concerned about the State Department's conclusion that the pipeline would "not likely result in significant adverse environmental effects."
As proposed, the pipeline would cross five U.S. states (Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas) and several major rivers – including the Missouri, Yellowstone, and Red Rivers – and aquifers that supply millions of Americans with drinking water and irrigated farmland. The construction and operation of the pipeline would bring significant risks to the lives and livelihoods of those living along its route and near the refineries to which the tar sands outflow would be directed.
TransCanada's Keystone I pipeline, which runs from Alberta, Canada, to refineries in Illinois, leaked 14 times during its first year of operation between 2010 and 2011, showing that these concerns are not simply theoretical. One of the largest spills occurred in North Dakota in May, when 21,000 gallons of tar sands oil leaked from the pipeline, temporarily shutting it down. Experts warn that spills would be more likely with the Keystone XL pipeline because of the more corrosive consistency of the tar sands oil that would flow through the pipeline.
Other government and expert studies show that tar sands oil produces three times more greenhouse gas emissions than crude oil, which leaves the State Department's assessment very low relative to other scientific studies. The EPA has estimated that Keystone XL would increase annual carbon emissions by the equivalent of seven coal-fired power plants operating continuously.
Environmentalists are also disputing the State Department's claim that the pipeline would be "unlikely to have a substantial impact on the rate of development of the oil sands." This conclusion directly conflicts with statements made by the oil and gas producers themselves. For instance, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers stated that Keystone XL is necessary to increase the expansion of tar sands (i.e., without it, production could not expand). And Standard & Poor's reported that future growth of tar sands will be at risk if new pipelines are not approved.

Weigh In! Make Your Voice Heard!

Members of the public can weigh in by submitting comments, questions, and concerns to the State Department as part of the permitting process. Send your comments to keystonecomments@state.gov by April 22. At the end of the public comment period, State will prepare a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, which will assess whether the pipeline "serves the national interest." Though the Final EIS will not determine whether the project gets approved, its content will be a critically important part of the decision. For this reason, it is vital for people to make their voices heard in this critical debate.

Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs

GAO-13-294SP, Mar 28, 2013

Reviewing DOD's Portfolio of Major Weapon Programs

Thursday, March 28, 2013

Audio interview by GAO staff with Michael Sullivan, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management

What GAO Found

The Department of Defense (DOD) 2012 portfolio of 86 major defense acquisition programs is estimated to cost a total of $1.6 trillion, reflecting decreases in both size and cost from the 2011 portfolio. Those decreases are largely the result of more programs exiting than entering the portfolio, as well as reductions in procurement quantities due to program cancelations and restructurings. Notably a majority of programs in the portfolio gained buying power in the last year as their acquisition unit costs decreased. DOD's 10 costliest programs, excluding the Missile Defense Agency's Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS), drive most of the portfolio's cost performance and funding needs. The majority (65 percent) of the funding that DOD estimates it will need to complete its current programs is associated with those 10 programs, and almost all of that funding is for procurement.

Continuing a positive trend over the past 4 years, newer acquisition programs are demonstrating higher levels of knowledge at key decision points, although many programs are still not fully adhering to a knowledge-based acquisition approach. Of the 32 programs that provided GAO with technology maturity, 5 reached full maturity while another 14 were near maturity when they began development. Four of the 5 programs with fully mature technologies started in the last 5 years. Less than one-third of the programs providing design data achieved design stability at their critical design review. Many of the programs are capturing critical manufacturing knowledge prior to production, but their methods vary.

Implementation of key selected acquisition initiatives varies among the programs GAO assessed, and programs continue to accept risks associated with concurrently conducting developmental testing and production. Many of the programs reported that they had established affordability requirements and noted that they were meeting those requirements. Most programs in this year's assessment have also conducted "should cost" analyses, and have identified cost savings as a result. Most programs GAO assessed reported that they had completed or planned to complete development testing while in production, a approach that risks costly retrofits of systems already built and fielded.

Why GAO Did This Study

This is GAO's annual assessment of DOD weapon system acquisitions, an area that has been on GAO's high-risk list for more than 20 years. The report responds to the mandate in the joint explanatory statement to the DOD Appropriations Act, 2009. It includes observations on (1) the cost and schedule performance of DOD's 2012 portfolio of 86 major defense acquisition programs, including the Missile Defense Agency's Ballistic Missile Defense System; (2) the knowledge attained at key junctures in the acquisition process for 40 major defense acquisition programs that were selected because they were in development or early production; and (3) key acquisition reform initiatives and program concurrency. Major defense acquisition programs are DOD's costliest weapon system development and procurement programs.

To develop the observations, GAO analyzed cost, schedule, and quantity data from DOD's Selected Acquisition Reports and collected data from program offices on technology, design, and manufacturing knowledge; the use of knowledge-based acquisition practices; and the implementation of DOD's acquisition policy and acquisition reforms.

In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD agreed that the cost reductions in its portfolio over the past year were largely due to exiting programs and reductions in procurement quantities. However, DOD stated that the metrics used did not adequately address program performance or answer the questions of when, why, and how changes occurred. GAO believes the report addresses these concerns.

DEFENSE ACQUISITIONS by Peggy Satterfield

Battle Lines Await an (Unlikely) Budgetary "Grand Bargain"

3/25/2013

With Congress and the Obama administration still divided over tax revenues, the possibility of a "grand bargain" on another major deficit reduction package seems increasingly small.

"The odds are very high that it doesn't get done," a senior White House official told the National Journal.
"It ain't happening," said a senior GOP aide on Capitol Hill.
In a meeting with House Democrats on March 14, President Obama himself assured Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) that the administration's proposed cuts in Social Security benefits were unlikely because a grand bargain on the budget was itself unlikely. "I haven't heard anything from Republicans on revenues," he said. "So Keith, I think you can relax."
But if it did happen, how would it happen? And what would it look like?

How Would It Happen?

According to White House aides, writes Ron Fournier in the National Journal, a grand bargain would first come together in the Senate, where Democrats would negotiate with a group of more moderate Republicans concerned about sequestration-related defense cuts, entitlement changes, and tax reform. The deal would also include new revenues derived from tax reform. Once passed in the Senate, said these aides, the deal would put pressure on the House to act and also provide political cover to House Republicans willing to cross party lines and support it.
"I do know that there are Republicans in Congress who privately, at least, say that they would rather close tax loopholes than let these cuts go through," President Obama said about across-the-board sequestration cuts that began in early March. "I know that there are Democrats who'd rather do smart entitlement reform than let these cuts go through. So there is a caucus of common sense up on Capitol Hill. It's just -- it's a silent group right now, and we want to make sure that their voices start getting heard."
"I think Republicans, if they saw true entitlement reform, would be glad to look at tax reform that generates additional revenues," said Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) on Fox News on March 17, echoing the president's comments. "And that doesn't mean increasing rates, that means closing loopholes. It also means arranging our tax system so that we have economic growth."
Democratic congressional leaders also remain open to a deal. According to a story in The Washington Post, both House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) are ready to back a grand bargain that includes both revenue increases and cuts in entitlements like Social Security.
So what are the chances this would happen? On March 20, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) put the odds of a grand bargain happening at less than 50 percent but, he said, if it gets done, it would likely be tied to a vote to extend the debt ceiling sometime later this summer.
If history is any guide, any package that reached the House and Senate floors would probably split both parties, especially in the House. A comprehensive tax package enacted earlier this year (the American Taxpayer Relief Act) passed in the House with 85 Republicans and 172 Democrats voting for it, but 151 Republicans and 16 Democrats voting against it. Similarly, the Budget Control Act enacted in 2011 passed with 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voting for it and 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats voting against it. A similar split seems likely on any grand bargain agreement.

What Might Be In It?

The final vote, of course, would depend largely on what was in the deal. Since no deal has been struck yet, it is difficult to know what support it would draw, but it is still possible to make some educated guesses.
The starting point would probably be a $1.8 trillion proposal offered by President Obama, which currently includes $680 billion in additional taxes, $880 billion in spending cuts – including cuts in Social Security benefits and Medicare – and $200 billion in interest savings. The proposal would also eliminate sequestration.
This proposal would likely be modified, however, to gain Republican support. Entitlement cuts might be increased, for example. Sequestration-related spending cuts, meanwhile, might not be eliminated, but merely delayed a year or two.
Provisions would probably also be included to smooth the way for individual and corporate tax reform that closes loopholes and lowers rates. Differences between the two parties over net new tax revenue, meanwhile, might be papered over by an agreement that would allow such revenue but leave it unclear whether this revenue would come from loophole closures or economic growth. This would leave resolution of the matter to the House and Senate tax-writing committees.

Many Republicans Would Still Oppose It

Any deal, if it happened, would probably still face an uphill fight on Capitol Hill. According to Politico analysts Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen, House Republicans see little reason to sign off on any agreement that both raises taxes and also angers seniors with entitlement cuts.
"Can you imagine Boehner and his troops heading into the 2014 midterm elections dominated by conservative activists having to explain, not one, but two increases?" they wrote.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has echoed these sentiments. "The president believes that we have to have more taxes from the American people. We're not going to get very far," Boehner told ABC's Martha Raddatz. "The president got his tax hikes on January 1. The talk about raising revenue is over. It's time to deal with the spending problem."
Meanwhile, although the president has made a concerted effort to reach out to Senate Republicans, those same senators have said that they are not prepared to buck their party's leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who said he will "absolutely not agree to increase taxes." Conservative organizations like the Club for Growth have also been warning GOP legislators to expect a primary challenge if they support a deal that raises taxes.

A Similar Split on the Left

Democrats would probably also be split on any grand bargain. But with Republicans divided, their support would be crucial, even in the House where they are in the minority.
Early signs of such division could be seen in a letter signed by over 100 House Democrats calling on the president and Democratic leaders to avoid any cuts in entitlements, including those achieved through modification of the consumer price index used to calculate cost-of-living increases for Social Security (called the chained CPI).
"If the Republicans are willing to make a major deal on tax revenues – which I doubt – but if they do, we can have a fight over chained CPI," Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) told The Washington Post.
If all of the House Democrats who signed this letter opposed the final deal, it probably would fall short. But some analysts believe that if it came to that, many would choose to support the president and the Democratic leadership. At least one Democratic leader agrees.
"If a president comes up with a reasonable approach which ends up giving years of solvency to Medicare ... I think that many Democrats will come around to that position," Durbin told The Hill. He said the president's support would provide them the cover they needed to shield them from grassroots anger.
These sentiments deeply worry some activists, including Damon Silvers, Director of Policy and Special Counsel for the AFL-CIO, who cautions Democrats not to even offer entitlement cuts. "This is an obvious trap," he told activists during a March 20 meeting. "People are forgetting how Republicans used the president's proposed Medicare cuts against him in the last campaign."
Overall, these divisions create both a challenge and an opportunity. If a deal is reached, it will probably move relatively quickly. Activists and policymakers would have little time to react and decide to either support or oppose a final package.
In the meantime, efforts like those by House Democrats to signal that cuts in entitlement benefits are unacceptable will be crucial. Their voices may spell the difference between a grand bargain that cancels sequestration and minimizes adverse impacts on the economy, and a "grand disaster" that could slow the economy, cut important investments like education, transportation, and research, and ask too little of the wealthiest among us.

Looking for an Easter Sunday activity? Tour the National Firearms Museum

NRA Museum opens on Easter for the first time in more than a decade

 Can you imagine taking your children to a gun museum on Easter Sunday, when you have just been to church heard the story of Jesus and His resurrection. Jesus who taught love, forgiveness, and turn the other cheek.  The NRA will do anything to make it seem family friendly. Absurd, and really?
By Lars Dalseide | March 27 2013 13:22

Fairfax, Virginia - It's Easter Sunday. The family is all dressed up, fresh from a morning service. Or maybe the kids are all covered in mud and goo from an early Easter Egg hunt. Now what do you do? Why not take a tour of the National Firearms Museum?

"Families are always looking for ways to accentuate their weekend activities," said National Firearms Museum Director Jim Supica. "Here at the NRA Museum, we have centuries of history and excitement that fits the family friendly bill."
Located at 11250 Waples Mill Road in Fairfax, Virginia, the museum is less than two miles of exit 57 on Interstate 66. Open from 9:30am to 5:00pm, there will be plenty of time to start your day with Easter celebrations and top it off with the wondrous collections here at the NRA.
Sunday's opening marks the first time in more than a decade that the museum is open for Easter. Don't let this opportunity pass you by.
"Fifteen galleries of guns starting with a 1350 European Handcannon going all the way up to the latest in today's firearm technology. Start at the front and end at the back. We're sure to have something for everyone."
For more on the NRA National Firearms Museum, visit their website at www.nramuseum.com.

Detroit Public Schools Emergency Manager Roy Roberts boldly lies on national television about his “success”

By Eclectablog on March 30, 2013 

Roy Roberts may be a convincing liar but he is still a liar

Michigan’s experiment with Emergency Managers has begun to catch national attention, thanks largely to the efforts of Rachel Maddow and her staff. One of the things that has become quite clear from the things I have written about here and the terrific reporting by The Rachel Maddow Show is that, despite the fact that our state is relying on budget-cutting Emergency Managers to solve problems that are complex and multi-faceted, they have yet to show that they actually WORK. Simply stated, outside of one tiny village, there has yet to be a city or school district that has emerged out from under and Emergency Financial Manager or an Emergency Manager and remained financially stable.
The Detroit Public Schools has been under the control of an Emergency Manager or Emergency Financial Manager for many years. The first Emergency Financial Manager, Robert Bobb, actually left the school district in a bigger financial hole than when he arrived. He was replaced by Governor Snyder by an auto industry marketing and sales guy, Roy Roberts. With Public Act 436 kicking in this past week, the law which thwarts the will of Michigan voters who struck down the previous Emergency Manager Law in last fall’s election, Roberts now has complete control over the school’s academic program once again (he had it for over a year then lost it after the November election.)
Roberts is very proud of his work and went on national television to tell the world that the Detroit Public Schools are back and, not only are they back, they are kicking some serious academic ass, surpassing the state average MEAP scores in a majority of categories. Here he is on NBC’s Education Nation Detroit Summit last week:

ROBERTS: But the key is, the academic side that you talked about, this past year on the state testing MEAP test, every grade in the Detroit Public Schools increased and improved and, in 14 out of 18, did better than the state average. That’s what it’s all about. HOST: That deserves applause.

Holy cow! This is terrific news! Finally — FINALLY! — an Emergency Manager success story! It’s what we’ve all been waiting for!
Unfortunately, it’s probably best NOT to get excited. Why?
It turns out that it’s complete bullshit. Dr. Thomas Pedroni at the Detroit Data and Democracy Project blog analyzed the test scores for the Detroit Public Schools, both with the EAA schools included and without them. What he found is that, simply put, Roy Roberts is lying. Boldly lying you might say. Detroit Public Schools are not outperforming the state average in 14 out of 18 categories. In fact, by and large, they aren’t even making gains:

Given all the recent bad news in Detroit, Roberts might be forgiven if his facts were a bit off the mark. It turns out, according to the Michigan Department of Education, that DPS did not outshine the state in 14 of 18 MEAP categories. The actual number was somewhat lower —- zero. DPS trailed the Michigan average in proficiency in all 18 categories. And not just by a bit—by more than 10 percentage points in the two science categories, and by 20 or more in the other 16. But it was a happy moment at the summit. No one—not one panelist, not one moderator, not one preselected member of the audience—raised an eyebrow over Roberts’ innovative facts. Perhaps Roberts had merely stumbled over his own words. Maybe he really meant to say that DPS schools were gaining ground on the Michigan averages -— that yes, DPS was still behind, but was steadfastly narrowing the achievement gap in 14 of the 18 categories.
Unfortunately, that’s not the story the MEAP numbers tell either.
Instead they show that the Detroit Public Schools have fallen even further behind the state average since gaining an Emergency Manager in 2009. The picture the numbers paint is particularly bleak when the 15 schools handed to the EAA just before the fall MEAP administration are factored in. They show that Detroit’s third through eighth graders continue to lose ground in reading and math proficiency in most categories.
The hardest hit have been our youngest test takers—those who have spent most of their school years under emergency management—our third, fourth, and fifth graders. Although Detroit students scored among the worst in the nation in 2009, Detroit’s third graders have since fallen 5.3 percentage points farther behind the state average in reading proficiency. In math, they have fallen another 5.1 percentage points below the state average.

I’m not sure how Roy Roberts gets off making blatantly false statements and then enjoying the applause from the audience as if he somehow deserved it. What’s worse is that our state media is giving him a complete pass on this. Perhaps it’s because they got scooped by a blogger. Dr. Pedroni offered this to the Detroit Free Press but, after many machinations, they turned him down. Here is his description of what happened and I find it shameful:

This column was submitted for consideration to the Detroit Free Press on Monday, March 25. The column was accepted, and slated to run online beginning Tuesday morning. However, on Tuesday afternoon I received a call from the paper’s editorial desk that more time was needed to go over the column. I had already emailed the editorial office links to the Education Nation Detroit Summit video with the times at which the pronouncements by Roberts (at 25:39) and [Chelsea] Clinton (at 43:00) were made. I had also emailed a link to the MDE site where the relevant MEAP data is stored, and shared my Excel Worksheets on which I had done the calculations underlying the analysis. The Free Press staffer and I carefully went over on the phone all the numbers and how they were derived. She thanked me for my time and care. The column was again cleared for publication, this time for Wednesday at noon. Just before noon I received another communication from the Free Press— that if they ran a piece accusing Roberts of lying, then the paper at least needed to check with him on what he intended to say. I pointed out that the column did not accuse Roberts of lying, but merely used data to analyze his claim. Later Wednesday afternoon I received a final email, that based on Roberts’ response, there was too much that would need to be changed in the column, and that I was welcome to take it elsewhere.

It’s bad enough that a state-appointed czar with complete control over the largest school district in the state boldly lies in public about success that he has, in fact, not achieved. It’s even worse when our state media is complicit in the lie by refusing to report on it.
I have been saying for some time that the demise of legitimate journalism in our country is leading the collapse of democracy, a collapse that I would argue is epitomized by Michigan’s Emergency Manager Law. The fact that one of the top media outlets in the state chose to turn a blind eye to the story is the clearest example I have seen yet about how they are failing us and leading to a loss of democracy in Michigan. Make no mistake: we NEED solutions to the problems our failing schools and cities face. What we also need is an honest accounting of whether or not our efforts are working so that, if they are not — and they decidedly ARE NOT at this point — we can make changes and move on to solutions that DO work. I would suggest that newspapers like the Detroit News and the Detroit Free Press start asking the hard questions and demanding that our state begin reinvesting in Detroit, its schools, and all of the other cities and districts that are being run by Emergency Managers. Because continuing to do the same things that aren’t working over and over again is not going to produce different results, no matter how much cheerleading they do.
[Caricature by DonkeyHotey from photos by Anne C. Savage for Eclectablog]