Join us at our brand new blog - Blue Country Gazette - created for those who think "BLUE." Go to www.bluecountrygazette.blogspot.com

YOUR SOURCE FOR TRUTH

Wednesday, July 4, 2012

Exclusive interview with God particle

By Andy Borowitz
 
NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report) – The Higgs boson particle has been everywhere these days – on TV, in newspapers and magazines, courtside at the NBA Finals with Kanye West.  We caught up with him as he took a breather for the 4th of July, at his home in East Hampton.

Q: First of all – and I have to ask this – “God particle?”  Really?  Who started that?

A: I have gotten so much shit for that!  (laughs)  I don’t know where that started.  Probably TMZ or somewhere!  Look, if people want to call me that because they like what I do… well, I’m humbled.  It’s cool to know that what you do makes people happy.  I love my fans.  But God particle?  I don’t think so!  I can’t even get my iPhone to sync. (laughs)

Q: Speaking of what you do… what do you do, exactly?

A: Probably what I’m best known for, for better or worse, is making atomic particles have mass.  But I don’t want to be pigeonholed as that, because I don’t want to put limits on what I plan to do in the future.  Like, right now I’m doing a lot of things that don’t involve atomic particles or mass or anything like that.  For example, my menswear line.  It’s a joint venture between me and Hugo Boss.  It’s going to be called either Higgs Boss or Hugo Boson.  Or we may go a whole different way and call it H. Biggy.  My branding team is into it right now.  I haven't been this excited about something I've been involved in since I created the universe.  Also, there's gonna be a fragrance.

Q: There’s been a lot written about tension in your relationship with Peter Higgs, one of the scientists who discovered you.  Any truth to the rumors?

A. Peter and I are both very passionate about what we do, and when you put a passionate human being and a passionate subatomic particle together there’s bound to be friction.  We fight like brothers sometimes, but it’s only because we care so deeply about what we’re doing and we want to make it perfect.  But as far as what happened in the club last week, no, I did not throw a bottle at his head.

Q: Okay, be honest, and no false modesty here: is there anything the Higgs boson can’t do?

A: Honest answer?  I want to be considered the Michael Jordan of subatomic particles.  By that I mean, Michael Jordan might not have been the most physically gifted player in the history of the NBA, but nobody worked harder at his game than he did.  That’s what I’m all about.  Whether it’s giving mass to matter, breaking electroweak symmetry or explaining the origin of the universe and whatnot, I believe I can do it all.

Q: Could you have kept Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise together?

A: Shit no! (laughs)

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Man charged with igniting Sunflower Fire

PHOENIX – On June 22, 2012, Steven Craig Shiflet, 23, from Mesa, Ariz., was charged by complaint in federal district court with carelessly or negligently placing an ignited substance that may cause a fire on National Forest System lands, firing incendiary ammunition on National Forest System lands, and causing timber, trees, slash, brush, or grass to burn on National Forest System lands. Shiflet is scheduled to make an initial appearance in federal court in Phoenix on July 13, 2012.

                 Investigation into the source and origin of the Sunflower Fire indicated that the fire originated near the intersection of Forest Road 25 and Sycamore Creek on May 12, 2012. According to the complaint, Shiflet and four of his friends traveled to the Sycamore Creek area from Mesa, Ariz., for a campout and bachelor party on May 11, 2012. The group had been shooting at targets for approximately two hours on the morning of May 12, 2012, at which point Shiflet loaded an incendiary shotgun shell into a shotgun and fired it. Shortly after Shiflet fired the shot, smoke appeared in the brush just behind where the shot was fired. Despite their attempts to do so, the men were unable to extinguish the fire. The fire has now burned nearly 18,000 acres of National Forest System lands.

            A conviction for each of the charges in the complaint carries a maximum penalty of six months in prison, a $5,000 fine, or both. A criminal complaint is simply the method by which a person is charged with criminal activity and raises no inference of guilt. An individual is presumed innocent until competent evidence is presented that establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

            The investigation in this case was conducted by the U.S. Forest Service. The prosecution is being handled by Vincent Kirby, Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of Arizona, Phoenix.

Freedom and disrespect not compatible


LETTERLETTERLETTER

Editor:

On Saturday, June 30 while visiting friends in Snowflake, we decided to attend the 4th of July Rodeo and Fireworks in Taylor. Amid the typical patriotic euphoria, the pledge, the singing of patriotic songs the display of the Flag and symbols of pride in our country, we were appalled to hear the rodeo announcer publicly enter into a disrespectful tirade against the President of the United States.

We hope the parents with children in attendance had the decency to explain that our ability to debate and disagree over issues is the basis of our Freedom, not disrespecting the highest office in our Democracy.

Tom and Ann McNutt
Overgaard AZ

Monday, July 2, 2012

Time to drop the tax increase rhetoric

In case you missed it over the weekend, here's a letter that appeared in Saturday's Arizona Republic:

'Mandate not a tax on most people'

Reference the Supreme Court decision on the individual mandate portion of the Affordable Care Act.

It is not a tax if you have insurance, because there is no penalty.

Given the hue and cry that has immediately arisen from the Republicans, you would think the sky was falling, which leads me to conclude that not one Republican has health insurance (thus all are fearful of a penalty) or that the world is full of Chicken Littles.

I, for one, am thankful and proud that we have a president and some congressional leaders (far too few, however) brave enough to ensure that all citizens in this rich country of ours can access reasonable and affordable health care.

Phyllis Henry
Scottsdale

For daily delivery of The Arizona Republic, call 1-800-332-6733.  You get the grocery ads, the big Sunday paper, D-Backs and Cards coverage, hundreds of dollars worth of coupons, and more.  Why not read a newspaper every day instead of twice a week?

Q and A on Supreme's Obamacare ruling

By Frank Rich
readersupportednews.org

So, the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act, after many on both sides predicted otherwise. What's your take?

I had the one reaction I didn’t expect to have: I was moved. An America without an independent judiciary is un-American, and this decision offered the first glimmer of hope since Bush v. Gore that this court may be something other than the partisan tool of a single political party. That’s something of a relief (or at least a temporary one) in the aftermath of Scalia's outburst earlier in the week, when he turned his dissent on the Arizona immigration decision into a poisonous anti-Obama political rant appropriate to a Koch Brothers conclave. 

Back in March, James Carville said that if the Supreme Court overturned health care, it would be "the best thing that has ever happened to the Democratic Party." Back then, you thought he had a point. How does the ruling affect Obama politically?

Carville argued — and I agreed — that striking down the law could have allowed the Democrats to blame the Party of No for rising costs and every other ill of the existing health-care system. That the law was largely upheld allows Obama the miraculous opportunity to get right what he screwed up before and after the bill was passed: a fresh chance to explain to voters exactly what this bill is and what is good about it. He can also demand that the GOP explain what it will do to match the Affordable Care Act’s most popular provisions. And the answer to that is zero. During the primaries, Romney even came out against the idea of guaranteeing coverage for those with preexisting conditions.

Earlier this week, Mitt Romney said that if the Court ruled against the health-care law, "the first three and a half years of this president's term would have been wasted." What's he going to say now?

Not that! And his "Obama has failed to lead" refrain will also have to be retired. So will his vow (on his website last time I looked) to appoint more justices like John Roberts to the Supreme Court.

The mandate, of course, has been a tricky subject for Romney. Will the decision double his resolve to repeal the health-care law?

Double his rhetoric? Yes, because that’s what his party’s radical base wants. But his resolve? Romney has no resolve. He’ll do whatever is expedient at the moment, should he be elected president. Meanwhile, for the rest of election season, he’ll keep having to explain away all the video clips of him cheerleading for the Romneycare insurance mandate he opposes when it’s called Obamacare. Another damning example surfaced the night before the Court’s decision, and you know they will keep raining down. Santorum had it right during the primaries when he said that Romney was the worst possible Republican candidate to argue against the health-care law. And let’s not forget, too, that each day Romney spends talking about health care (and about the subject of the week’s other major decision, immigration) is a day that he violates his own campaign game plan of focusing exclusively on the economy.

Since Citizens United, John Roberts has been branded a hero by conservatives and a villain by liberals. How will this decision affect the view of him, and the Court in general?

Liberals (including me) are already finding new virtues in him, of course! What’s going to be fascinating is to see the right turn on him and try to vilify him as the new David Souter. Expect Alberto Gonzales, the hapless Bush attorney general who has bragged about vetting Roberts, to get some blame, too. Romney may soon be calling for Gonzales to “self-deport.”

Health-care reform has been successfully branded by conservatives as "Obamacare." In the popular perception, does Roberts now own part of this law, too?

Do most Americans know who Roberts is? I wonder. A more likely perception is that the Court as a whole has endorsed “Obamacare.” 

Will Romney and the congressional GOP now try to run against the Supreme Court?

The Tea Party exhibitionists are already rushing to retrieve their adorable Revolution-era costumes and “Don’t Tread on Me” placards from the closet. They will surely take to the streets and town hall meetings to scream about the tyranny of the Supreme Court throughout the summer, in the manner they made famous when first protesting “Obamacare” three summers ago. Every day they do so — and every day that Romney and the congressional GOP take the bait — is another day that the Republicans are not talking about jobs and the economy. And another day when the GOP looks like a radical, angry fringe to voters in the middle.

But the Affordable Care Act remains unpopular. A Fox News poll taken this week found that only 39 percent of American were in favor, the same percentage as when the law was signed. Will this decision affect that?

Absolutely. After Obama endorsed same-sex marriage, it started to rise in the polls, a direct reflection of what the presidential imprimatur meant to some who had been on the fence. The same will be true of the Court’s endorsement of the Affordable Care Act. It’s still a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval to some voters — particularly, I suspect, to independents and to those who don’t follow politics all that closely (e.g., independents). At the very least, undecided voters will give the law another close look, which is why it’s so important that Obama seize the moment to make it absolutely clear to all what Americans will gain from it.

CNN and Fox News both reported that the Court had struck down the Affordable Care Act. Then they both reversed course. Florida redux?

Premature adjudication remains the default setting of too much of the news media. Covering a Supreme Court decision like a horse race has led to some real embarrassments — “Dewey Beats Truman” on digital steroids. Most of the predecision predictions were wrong, including the near-universal assumption Anthony Kennedy would be the swing vote. And once the law was upheld, it was fascinating to see how many pundits on Twitter refused to take "yes" for an answer; in their eagerness to be the first on their app with the news, they declared the law “Struck Down,” only to have to recant almost instantly. As for Fox News, its mistake was no surprise; it routinely “reports” the news as it decides it to be, and so this blooper was par for the course. But for CNN, this was a Waterloo — a colossal embarrassment that came soon after the news that its ratings had sunk to their lowest level since 1991. It’s been widely reported that a major shake-up at the network is on the way. Surely, high on the to-do list of any new management tasked with righting CNN will be to sweep away everyone responsible for this fiasco on-camera and off faster than you can say “Ann Curry.”

Sunday, July 1, 2012

Big 2 for 1 sale in July at Library Bookstore

During July the Library Friends of Payson Bookstore is featuring a two for the price of one, mix and match, clearance sale on the entire Bookstore inventory.
 
Choose from hardback books, paperback books, juvenile and young adult books, audio books, CD’s, or jig saw puzzles.  Combine any and all items to take advantage of this amazing sale.  This is a fine opportunity to stock up on great summer reading.
 
Recently, the Bookstore has received a several large donations of video cassettes.  The library is weeding their non-fiction video collection as well.  Therefore, the Bookstore is overflowing with worthwhile videos on a variety of topics from science to travel.  During July all videos will be priced at 3 for $1.00.  Just the thing to help get the children through a hot afternoon.
 
Bookstore stock changes daily, so the wise shopper visits frequently.  You won’t find a better value anywhere in Payson.
 
All Bookstore proceeds benefit the Library Friends of Payson General Fund which supports library services and programs not included in the regular budget.  The Bookstore is located to the right of the circulation desk just inside the Payson Public Library, 328 N. McLane Road.
 
 For more information visit the Library Friends of Payson website at www.libraryfriendsofpayson.org  
 

Arpaio: Maricopa County's King of Cruel


Inmates walk alongside Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Phoenix. (photo: Joshua Lott/Getty Images)

By Sadhbh Walshe
Guardian UK
30 June 12

n the southwest corner of Phoenix, Arizona, a large neon vacancy sign hanging from a watchtower looms over the Maricopa County jail complex, home to the infamous "tent city" – a facility as notorious as the tough guy Sheriff Joe Arpaio who makes it his business to keep it full. Arpaio's methods of rounding up and detaining prisoners, and the conditions to which they are subjected once inside his jails, have been relentlessly criticized by human rights groups. Yet, there is no indication that the vacancy light at the complex will be switched off anytime soon.

Last month, the federal government filed a lawsuit against Arpaio, accusing him of racial profiling and numerous civil rights violations for allowing (and encouraging) his deputies to make broad sweeps of Latino neighborhoods and rounding up anyone who they suspect might be in the US illegally or who cannot produce papers on request. Seeming nervous or avoiding eye contact with police has been cause enough to make arrests. Having brown skin helps, too.

Arpaio has ridiculed the lawsuit as a politically motivated act, and the sweeps are expected to continue, particularly in light of the recent supreme court ruling that held up a key portion of Arizona's SB1070 immigration law known as the "show me your papers" clause.

It is inside his jails, however, that the most egregious human rights violations occur. Last weekend, during a protest rally at the jail organized by the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA), Reverend Peter Morales, UUA's president, was taken on a tour of the complex. Morales said the first thing that struck him was the oppressive wall of heat. At this time of year, temperatures inside the tent city reach up to 140º. There are no fans. Needless to say, there is no air conditioning.

Morales spoke to a few inmates during the tour and one of the issues they raised was the fact that they are not given enough time to refill their water containers. They also complain about the food. Inmates are fed only twice a day and Arpaio has boasted in the past of the food being rotten; green bologna is a specialty.

There is a provision in the much-heralded US constitution, known as the eight amendment, which is supposed to protect prisoners from being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. I'm no constitutional lawyer, but housing people in 140º temperatures without so much as a fan and limiting their access to drinking water sounds pretty cruel to me.

But there is also an unusual element to Arpaio's punitive ideals. For years now, he has been forcing male inmates to wear pink underwear in a deliberate attempt to humiliate them. Their towels, socks and sweaters are also pink. Every so often, the pink-clad prisoners are marched through the streets of Phoenix, so the city's residents can bask in their humiliation.

Arpaio claims his pink underwear tactics are all about reducing crime and saving taxpayer money. Unfortunately, it seems they are achieving neither. A 2009 report by the conservative Goldwater Institute found that not only has violent crime gone up in Maricopa County (homicides alone increased 166% between 2004 and 2007). So, too, have costs. The combination of budget overruns, overtime payments and the millions of dollars in settlements paid out to plaintiffs who sued for wrongful arrest and detention have made a mockery of the sheriff's claims that he is saving his constituents money.

Beyond wasting tax payer dollars while compromising public safety, there is a bigger issue at play here. A new documentary called Two Americans (featuring Arpaio as one, and a little girl called Katherine Figueroa as the other) highlights the human cost of his petty cruelties in a heartbreaking way. Figueroa is a US-born citizen, but her Mexican parents are not. When they were rounded up and detained in one of Arpaio's sweeps, the nine-year-old girl found herself landed an activist role at the center of America's increasingly fraught immigration debate. Weeping before a congressional hearing, this American child, who is now without parental care, issued a plaintive plea to the sheriff to release her mother and father. She said she knows they were detained "because they weren't born here and they say that's against the law," but still, she begged for clemency.

Her pleas, and the pleas of many other children in similar predicaments, have not yet been answered. Despite the mounting criticism, Arpaio has shown no inclination to change his ways. In a speech to supporters, he laughed off accusations of racial profiling, lambasted the US Department of Justice (DOJ) for having the nerve to interfere in his business and boasted "we arrested 500 more (Latinos) just for spite."

Eventually, the nearly 80-year-old Arpaio's wings will be clipped. Either the federal lawsuit will proceed to trial or he may eventually retire. Until then, it is not the pink-clad prisoners, but those who voted him into office and have been cheering him along for decades, who should be feeling mortified.