Thank you everybody for being such a great audience and an even better source of learning over the years. I fully intend for this to be the final post on the Arizona Growler. Hey, if professional athletes can call a long hiatus “retirement,” so can I. Therefore, I “retire” from politics.

Jeff Rutledge continues to pursue his degree in media arts and general business administration. Trevor Smith is graduating with a B.A. in political science and will be working in Washington (that’s all he let me say). Ratman continues to wreak common-sensical havoc upon liberal public schools in southwestern Arizona.

I was going to announce my specific career plans on this blog, but recent events have led me to handle this a little more securely. If you’d like to know, and if I know you (having only met on the Internet still counts), you can feel free to shoot me an email at gpohara at gmail dot com, and I’ll be more than willing to let you in on the secret.

On a podcast-related note, you might recall some legal research back on the “O’Hara Factor” where I determined that getting the Arizona Board of Regents to turn its current weapons policy around would be sufficient to restore gun rights on Arizona’s university campuses. I hope that helps anybody who decides to make a political push.

The Arizona blogosphere meanwhile looks as healthy and vibrant as ever. I only hope that more people pay attention as blogs become the norm as opposed to a niche. Thank you everybody for the good times. Please know full well that I’m leaving on a better note than what the podcast might imply. It’s a challenge that I hope will be taken up soon.

Best Regards,
G. P. O’Hara

Meanwhile, MSNBC cashes in. Right now, I’m wondering whether I should write into the Wildcat to implore people to resist the inevitable politicking about to take place, if not already.

When tagged, you have to take your birthday date and find out some things about it. You have to find, events, other people who were born on the same day, deaths and a holiday.

First off, in case you couldn’t tell, my noting of Justice Antonin Scalia’s birthday is my usual method of announcing that it’s my birthday. Other birthdays on March 11 include Rupert Murdoch (1931), Sam Donaldson (1934), Gale Norton (1954), Jesse Jackson Jr. (1965), and Bobby Abreu (1974). Deaths include Johnny Appleseed (1847), Charles Sumner (1874), Oscar Mayer (1955), and Slobodan Milošević (2006). Major events include the election of Pope Leo X (1513), the adoption of the Confederate Constitution (1861), Emperor Meiji’s annexation of Okinawa (1872), and the Madrid Train Bombings (2004). Holidays include Johnny Appleseed day, Lithuania’s reestablishment of independence, Lesotho’s Moshoeshoe Day, and Zambia’s Youth Day.

Sonoran Alliance and Lighthouse Blog, you are tagged.

The best speech at CPAC that nobody heard about was given in Ukranian by the former prime minister. Yulia Tymoshenko delivered a powerful message that reached beyond a foreign language to touch the hearts of those who listened. Tymoshenko , who was given the Ronald Reagan Award, discussed the struggle for freedom and liberty in her country. She talked about Reagan’s hopeful message about a shining city on the hill and tough stance against tyranny, which inspired her to take a stand. Tymoshenko, who led the Orange Revolution, did not have to risk her life to fight against evil forces. Yet, her belief in serving a cause greater then self motivated her to act. Her speech reminded me that US policy decisions have far reaching impacts across the globe. That is why I believe that we must not turn our backs on those who are risking their lives for liberty - like in Iraq. And we should not ignore those who are building their own shining city.

Panelists will include:

• Dr. Kevin Kemper, UA journalism law professor
• Allison Winters, UA student researching journalism and blogging
• Robert Leger, Assistant editorial page editor for the Arizona Republic, Co-vice chair of the national SPJ Freedom of Information committee
• Yours truly.

I suppose the panel may mark an end to the political side of my life, as my choice of career has other things in mind for me. All politics on the Growler (unless something really unusual occurs) will cease April 11th. Either on or after this date, I will be announcing my career plans and transitioning the blog to a close.

(I was going to try to put out a podcast relaying this as a “phased withdrawal from politics,” but I figured that would go too far.)

In case you couldn’t tell, I’m taking a break from blogging for a while. This day also officially marks having two months left before I retire from blogging. More on that later.

It looks as if PCYD.us is fighting back, though, as it now has a popup link leading to the voting site, effectively bypassing the frame blocker.

Gerner never responded to my request for comment, and I reckon nothing of consequence came out of the elections commission concerning this. Moreover, it looks as if even more senatorial candidates than before bowed out before the general election, not that they’ve made me care enough to check against the previous list. The most boring, intellectually-absent election in four years at UA rages on.

At some point, Republicans will need to get over their issues with homosexuality. Regardless of whether one believes it to be a choice or a hardwired response, it has little impact on anyone but the gay or lesbian person. We can argue that homosexuality doesn’t require legal protection, but not when we have our front-line activists referring to them as “faggots” or worse. That indicates a disturbing level of animosity rather than a true desire to allow people the same rights and protections regardless of their lifestyles.

[…]

First, criticizing Coulter’s use of the word “faggot” is not a suppression of free speech; it is an exercise of free speech. We’re not advocating her arrest for using the word. We’re just saying it was stupid, unnecessary, and hateful. This is no different than Melissa McEwan calling Christians “Christofascist Godbags” and Amanda Marcotte’s incendiary hate speech about Catholics. We howled about that when John Edwards hired them; why do we defend Coulter’s appearance at CPAC?

Perhaps Ann Coulter should be called the Brother Jed of conservative activism, except that people somehow like Ann Coulter.

I went back yesterday afternoon. Originally I was intending to study over a good amount of coffee before a 6pm class, but the noise outside the southwest SUMC patio became too much.

Rev. Smock was back to his own ways, yelling and namecalling for no justified reason–which is to say that there are good reasons for doing so as Jesus did; Rev. Smock didn’t have one.

The epiphany came when he asked a certain skeptic whether he had been smoking marijuana. I confronted him again asking him to recall what I said to him Tuesday, he retorted back at me, and suddenly things were civil again. Rev. Smock left around 5:15pm with many of the rest of us discussing in a civilized manner.

After a conflict with one particular gentleman who became offended at me, disagreeing that one could still be respectful of a person while disagreeing in belief or principle, I went into the 24/7 prayer tent, talked about the dealings with the individual inside, and praised God for making the civil conversation possible. Throughout my 6-8:30pm class, I paid attention to the lecture but still couldn’t get my mind off what God was doing.

This afternoon, I discovered that Jed has been posting updates (1 | 2 | 3) on his website’s bulletin board. I don’t mean to be egotistic here, but I find it strange that my confrontations with him are not mentioned, despite having noted what I feel are the results of God using them to promote civility over mockery and theater.

Allow me to reemphasize that anger and loud voice in many circumstances is entirely justified. Mall preachers aren’t immediately in the wrong because of raising their voices; they are wrong when they do it for no good biblical reason. The story of the Gospel is offensive enough to man as it is.

Rev. Smock’s theology page contains a few rather questionable theological details (especially conditional love, which I believe is a matter of the specific Greek words used for love in the passages described). As far as intentional offense is concerned (which he undoubtedly utilizes), Rev. Smock cites Luke 6:1-11. Quoted version is NIV.

And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.

And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days?

And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him;

How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?

And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

And it came to pass also on another sabbath, that he entered into the synagogue and taught: and there was a man whose right hand was withered.

And the scribes and Pharisees watched him, whether he would heal on the sabbath day; that they might find an accusation against him.

But he knew their thoughts, and said to the man which had the withered hand, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. And he arose and stood forth.

Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing; Is it lawful on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy it?

And looking round about upon them all, he said unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he did so: and his hand was restored whole as the other.

And they were filled with madness; and communed one with another what they might do to Jesus.

I don’t see Jesus intentionally offending people just to be provocative. Rather, He’s trying to make a point. So yes, Jesus knew full well that they would be offended, but offense was not His primary intention. Others like Cliffe Knechtle offend people too, simply for the fact that the Gospel itself is offensive to worldly notions of self-sufficiency, responsibility, moral relativism, etc. Unlike healing a man’s hand in the synagogue in the midst of hostile thoughts, calling a well-intentioned nonbeliever a marijuana smoker doesn’t accomplish anything positive.

I think I’ll go grab lunch right now and see if he’s back.

previous confrontation

Update: I just got back from visiting the Alumni Plaza, and he’s back to his old ‘gay’ song singing ways. I didn’t confront him this time. It’s just a theater. Regardless, God is bigger than Rev. Smock. Behind the theater and exhibitionism is a modicum of real Truth.

The primary election results are in, but I’ve come to a different conclusion than I expected, though I suppose I was just being naive. I really do hope things turn around soon for the sake of the student body.

This is one of those issues where liberal and conservative no longer mean anything. The Wildcat coming from a liberal perspective looks just as apathetic. What does that tell you, people?

How to listen:

Play episode | RSS 2.0 Feed (podcasts) | Subscribe with iTunes

I will be at the election results show tonight at 8pm in the Union Kiva, but what you may not know is that my laptop screen broke early in the semester. I decided on buying an external monitor instead of fixing it, which works for schoolwork but doesn’t work for podcasting large events as I did with the congressional debates last semester. For audio though, there’s always the laptop loans available at the library, of which I’ll probably be taking much advantage in the next week.

(updated)

This post contains sexually explicit descriptions and should not be read by children.

I didn’t get the chance to see Brother Jed Smock in action yesterday, but I did today. Coming out of a class that ended at 12:15 in the Psychology building, I headed west to find him at the Alumni Plaza in his trademark look going through a typical overdramatized routine about how he used to be into “rrrrrrock and roll!”

I observe for about fifteen minutes with some friends. Some campaign staff for presidential candidate Brad Wulff and executive vice presidential candidate Jessica Anderson arrive. I talked to one of them and explained my blog and questionnaire, asking if they could relay to their candidates a request to fill it out. Somewhere in the middle of this, they ask the crowd to vote for Brad Wulff.

I then observed him take out a pair of electrical extension cords and start explaining how homosexuality doesn’t work. The female ends don’t connect together. Neither do the male ones. But connect a male and female and it works, “up and down, up and down.”

Out of the west in the distance comes senatorial candidate Dustin Cox (an acquaintance and classmate of mine in a national security class last semester) campaign, probably unaware of the specific demonstration he was giving. They all start chanting.

We love Cox…for ASUA Senate!
We love Cox…for ASUA Senate!

Even I was laughing here. Smock responded by waving the end of his electrical cord to illustrate a limp penis. As the Cox campaign completed their demonstration, Brother Jed then starting singing his own little song, still illustrating male homosexual activity with the electrical cord.

It’s not okay to be gay…
It’s not okay to be [pause] HO-MO.

I feel like Jed and I are the only people not laughing, and I’m not laughing for a different reason than him. Though I was talking with a friend while this started, it was the last straw. For the first time in my college career despite Brother Jed having visited annually for decades, I verbally confront Brother Jed.

Sir, do you think this glorifies Christ? What is your objective, sir?

Brother Jed continues with his song and explanations ignoring me for a bit. I keep imploring him to speak with me. But once he’s done, I have his attention. My right leg is shaking uncontrollably. I explain that I am a Christian and I don’t think what he’s doing is helping out at all, but is rather engineered to induce mockery. We start debating. He then brings up a new subject and shifts the conversation, talking about how the scientific possibility of being “born gay” is a falsehood.

I haven’t examined this evidence, but what I do know is that we’re born sinful. My inclination to sin does not make sin right; it does not justify my sin. Brother Jed disagrees, noting that Romans 5 says that death is passed on, not sin.

Still yet, we have some common ground. The asking for mockery ends, and suddenly Brother Jed started making sense. The group became quiet. Some left out of boredom. One gave the middle finger, and for a guy like Brother Jed, that’s a small number.

Another man who’s been hanging around the mall for the past two weeks with his dog and his sign notes that Brother Jed spoke to him while he was a student in 1977; that’s what brought him to Christ. After much talking, he asks if I can say Amen to what he had been speaking since our dealing.

I can say Amen to that. Absolutely.

Later on, I explain how I came to Jesus. I also encourage the crowd not to examine Brother Jed, but to examine Christ himself. Is He real? Are the Gospels reliable? Does He want you to come to him? Brother Jed agrees.

Fellow students, it’s not about what we think of this one mall evangelist or anybody for that matter; it’s about the Guy Upstairs.

Despite the mockery of Dustin Cox, and the random imploring of the campaigns of Brad Wulff, Jen Dang, and Michael Slugocki, and the scoffing of yours truly during the past three years, something out of this made sense. Maybe Brother Jed isn’t as bad as we all apparently think. And no matter how the guy really is, something truly good came out of it all. It’s just what I prayed for last night. It’s what so man of us have been praying for during 24/7 Prayer. And God answered. And we’re going to keep praying. And He’s going to keep answering.

Stuart posted a reply through a comment on the previous post as well as mistakenly emailing the entire ASUA listserv when he only wanted to send it to me. After some outcry, I clarified the situation and Stuart subsequently apologized for the mistake. There is a provision of the Elections Code that prohibits campaigning on listservs unless a club which owns a listserv is making an endorsement. Stuart clearly wasn’t intending to campaign on a listserv here; let’s hope the Elections Commission agrees.

In addition to the allegations in the comment and email, Stuart contends that not only is Gerner posting the website after it had been struck down by the Elections Commission, but also that this constitutes an egregious violation of both the Elections Code and his personal integrity. Moreover, the posting of the site endangers the candidates listed to major action from the Elections Commission. I recall that Elections Commissioner David Martinez III did mention during the mandatory candidate meeting following the petition deadline that individual candidates would be held responsible for clubs’ violations of the elections code, e.g. putting more than one candidate’s name on a single flyer. I didn’t talk to Stuart long on the phone (as he has a campaign event tonight), but I think this restriction is what he was talking about. As I’ve mentioned way too many times lately, Gerner is the central figure in the recent “Red” dealings (1 | 2 | 3 | 4) on which only the Growler has been reporting.

Should this particular issue come to the ASUA Supreme Court, it may come to an issue of the definition of “campaign staff” as debated in a case last year. At that time, it was ruled that candidate Rhonda Tubbs could not be punished for a campaign violation that fellow “Orange” ticket candidate Matt Van Horn committed on her behalf. As I understood it, Tubbs could not be disqualified because Van Horn technically wasn’t a member of her campaign staff. (By the way, the violation was for putting “Vote Rhonda Tubbs” on his AOL Instant Messenger profile. This act is no longer a violation under the new elections code.)

It is my belief that the ASUA Supreme Court is quite corrupt, at least after my experience with getting stonewalled either for not being a real journalist or for having criticized their inherent claim to objectivity after Justice Shar Bahrmani wrote a letter to the Wildcat concerning the Cade Bernsen sexual harassment allegations. Bahrmani still sits on the court. That’s right; Rep. Grijalva wasn’t the first guy to ever stonewall me for not being a real journalist in case you were wondering.

Meanwhile, the “Judicial Court” at Texas A&M University recently ruled that their elections rule concerning multiple candidate names was unconstitutional. Should a club make the exact mistake Commissioner Martinez was citing, this could be another constitutional issue for the court to decide.

I’m one to think Steven Gerner is within his constitutional rights regardless of whether Anthony Stuart was correct in calling him a “slimeball” over the phone. Constitutional rights unfortunately do not always entail etiquette, though if I was in his position I would have done what I’m doing now: endorse the candidates and avoid getting them in trouble.

The Elections Commission according to the Elections Code has 24 hours to respond to each of the 15 or more complaints received today. Stuart claims he sent his complaint within one hour of his reading it this morning, so expect something soon. Meanwhile, I’m contacting Gerner for comment and keeping a very watchful eye on everybody.

Coming tomorrow morning is a report concerning the current visit of mall evangelist “Brother” Jed Smock, including my confrontation with him and various candidates mocking him or using his crowd in order to campaign. I’ve actually had a change of heart about the guy, and I’m quite peeved at the candidates who decided to take advantage the way they did. If you haven’t voted yet and you’re considering candidates other than my endorsements, you will want to read this report before casting your ballot.

Full disclosure: I consider Steven a friend and we are registered as friends on Facebook after having taken a class together. I can always pledge to do my best to remain objective in such matters, but disclosure matters as well. Take that as you wish.

Hey Garrett!

I hope you’re having an amazing day! I know you’re going to get
several emails about this, but today (Feb. 27) and tomorrow (Feb. 28)
are Student Government Elections! There are a bunch of super amazing
candidates running I was hoping you would take a moment to vote for.
It takes less than a minute to vote.

Vote Online Now - http://www.pcyd.us/

President - Tommy Bruce
Executive VP - Michael Slugocki
Admin VP - Jen Dang
Senate
- Mark Copoulos
- Dustin Cox
- Amy C. Drapkin
- Jason Brian Ernst
- Brent Hanson
- Seema Patel
- James Pennington-McQueen

Vote Online Now - http://www.pcyd.us/

These candidates are running on lots of different "tickets", but I
know each and everyone of them will be amazing in office. I’m not
working on any of their campaigns, I just think they would do a great
job and that’s why I’m sharing this with you. While student
government might seem distant, they have over a $1 million budget
offering services like SafeRide and impacting Tuition, Class
Availability, and Textbook Prices. The people in office really can
make a difference! Feel free to forward this email and encourage
others to vote.

Smile if you made it all the way down here! It’s a beautiful day!

Thanks!

Steven Gerner
[email address removed]

Following the link leads to a frameset where the candidate names — hosted on pcyd.us — are on the left with the polling website — hosted on UA servers — on the right.  There is no insinuation that any of the candidates explicitly authorized the webpage.

Nonetheless, you may recall my previous investigation of the "Steven ‘Red’ Gerner" dealings.  All candidates on the "Team Red" ticket are present on the emailed list.  New to "Team Red" since that time is Executive VP candidate Michael Slugocki.

Last year’s elections code to my remembrance prohibited candidates from establishing their own polling stations (which only requires a couple of laptops with wireless Internet access); I don’t see it in this one.  Steven has every right to set this up as should any candidate, but I doubt the elections commission likes the looks of this.

Meanwhile if you are voting, my primary elections endorsements are Alaina Glatting for Admin VP and Ry Ellison for Senate, neither of whom appear in the email.  Vote at this link, not at that other one.

Administrative Vice President candidate Alaina Glatting is currently the sole respondent to the ASUA candidate questionnaire. Though I disagree with many of the answers she provided, I am grateful for her willingness to answer the tough questions without shame.

I reckon the low responses is because only six out of 23 candidates are at risk in the primary election, but a 16.7% response rate among those at risk is still very disappointing.  Maintaining this rate requires only three more candidates out of the remaining 23 to respond, which is hardly a way to make an educated voting decision.

Alaina is running against two other candidates in Tuesday and Wednesday’s primary election in which the third-place candidate will be eliminated from the general election ballot.  In the interest of promoting general election candidates who are open about what they believe, the Arizona Growler awards a primary election endorsement to Alaina Glatting for ASUA Administrative Vice President.

Alaina’s responses follow: 

1. Describe your political views (liberal, conservative, etc.) and how they affect your campaign platform.

   Although I do have my own set of views on politics which do make me lean one way or the other in certain situations, I do not feel that these views affect my campaign platform. The University of Arizona is highly diverse and the programs and services focuses on serving the students regardless of their sexual orientation, ethnicity, and any other beliefs. I would work to help make every student feel comfortable and my political views have no impact on equality.

2. In future elections, what should the monetary limit of campaign spending be (if any)?

   Any qualified person at the U of A should be able to run for a position. If someone chooses not to run, it should not be because of their financial status. There should be a certain limit for every candidate and the current budget I feel is fair. It allows candidates to have enough spending to promote themselves without holding back other candidates who are not as well off.

3. Is the position of ASUA Senator in your view more legislative or administrative? Is this a false dichotomy?

   I believe that the position of ASUA senator is a mixture of the two. A senator should be able to formulate a platform based on the needs of the student body and if elected should succeed on making it a reality. All the while, a senator should be attending the scheduled Senate and other meetings to represent their cause at the administrative level.

4. The Women’s Resource Center recently sent out an email railing against the recent Justice For All exhibit that was out on the mall. Is this appropriate conduct for a part of student government?

   I do feel that a student government organization saying outright that another organizations display is “lie-filled” might not be in their best interest. I also would have to say that the directors who wrote the article together probably decided what they thought was best for their organization. It would be my duty as the Administrative Vice President to work with all of the directors and make sure that everything sent out is respectful of everyone’s views.

5. Regardless of your position on abortion, does the Justice For All exhibit present a need for certain mall events to be curtailed?

   I feel that everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe. I also believe that there should be a certain restriction on what mall events can and cannot be presented. The mall is a very public place and presentations should show both sides of an issue as to not pinpoint that a certain one is correct. I also feel that such a large public display might have been better off somewhere that is not quite as populated so that people have the choice to look at it or not.

6. Should the Women’s Resource Center and the Pride Alliance be relegated to club status in order to facilitate fairness towards all points of view?

   Programs and Services is an area of ASUA that is able to reach out to as many students and possible regardless of their sexual orientation, ethnicity or any other beliefs, as I mentioned in the first question. Pride Alliance does reach out to the LGBTQ community but does not turn away anyone who comes by. The same goes towards the Women’s Resource center. With a growing and diverse university such as this one, relegating these two programs to club status would take away student government representation to a large population of students that utilize both of these wonderful organizations.

7. How transparent is ASUA? Should things such as proposed bills and Senate minutes be required to be posted onto the ASUA website for public review?

   As an organization that is here to represent all of the students on campus, I feel that the students should be able to know what is going on. If posting Senate minutes and proposed bills is in the best interests of the students, than I see no reason why it could not be implemented.

8. In comparison with the old elections code, do you think that the new elections code will result in less mudslinging than in previous elections? Is it strong enough against potential "dirty" campaigners?

   The Elections Commissioner this year has worked very diligently to create a fair, practical and strong elections code. The hard work and dedication that has been put in to create it, has not gone to waste. I do think that if someone wants to be a “dirty” campaigner, they will find a way regardless of how well written any code may be. I have not been able to find anything wrong with the code in its entirety this year and as of now it seems to be working just fine.

9. David Horowitz recently laid heavy criticism upon the University of Arizona, going to far as to criticize individual classes and instructors, leading to heavy debate over issues of academic freedom. Truly, what is the best implementation to facilitate a "free marketplace of ideas"? Are Horowitz’s criticisms fair? Does Horowitz’s "Academic Bill of Rights" fit the bill?

   I believe that everyone has the right to their own opinion. Horowitz spoke up about what he believes in. I personally do believe that the professors should not lead students to believe one side or another of certain controversial issues. I also feel it might have been going a little over the line to specifically pinpoint certain professors and individuals on the subject but the overall idea is a good one, in my opinion.

10. What if anything should university administration and/or ASUA do in the wake of recent offensive speech and activities on and off campus?

    Depending on the subject of any speech and activity on or off campus, if it effects the students at the university, it could be in the best interest of the ASUA to comment. With these comments, ASUA and the administration should both be unbiased and explain the situation to the extent that the students understand and can get more information if they choose to do so. I would hope that it is not a member of the student government or the administration that initiated the offensive activities.

11. Is military aircraft noise presenting a significant barrier to university activities?

    Although I do not feel that it is a significant barrier to university activities, if changing the flight plan is not going to interfere too much with the current instruction and practices of the military base then it would be nice to have it changed. It hasn’t been too many years that the aircrafts have actually been able to fly over the university (due to past events) and I am unaware that anyone has actually researched into it since.

12. Given the regular inability to fulfill campaign promises, explain how those on your platform are feasible.

    When I researched my platforms, I made sure that they are very feasible to accomplish in one academic years time. Cats Ridde has been researched for the past few years and there are many universities around the nation with similar programs. With more research and funding, making Cats Ridde a success is just around the corner. With such a diverse university, representing as many international students as possible is something that needs to happen. The international student association (ISA) has been a program within Programs and Services for many years and just needs to be shown a little more attention. Wildcat World Fair (WWF) has expanded in the past few years, so allowing ISA and WWF to work together will help promote both organizations and international students together. Lastly, every program has the potential to do something amazing and with the proper guidance, every director can improve their programs to make next year one of the most successful in representing students. All of these promises can absolutely be accomplished in one year.

The responses themselves are public domain.  The questions, like all posts, are licensed for public use.