This is really mostly a polemic about the fuckers who live in my neighborhood.
I live in the City of South Tucson, a square mile of Tucson that seceded, essentially, from Tucson when the population (then as now, primarily Hispanic) determined that greater Tucson was failing to serve their needs.
On our ballots, but not on the ballots of any other Tucson residents, is an almost outrageously benign proposition, dealing with the proper treatment of dogs- and, aimed at the Tucson Greyhound Park. There aren't many greyhound parks left in Arizona. There aren't many left nationally. Ours is pretty much the last stop on the way to Mexico for racing greyhounds. It's not nice. It isn't. Check out http://www.endtucsongreyhoundracing.com/ for more details.
The ballot proposition is simple. Taken from the Pima County website, it reads:
Should South Tucson amend its animal ordinance to prohibit people from knowingly feeding uncooked meat to dogs; from giving dangerous anabolic steroids to dogs to enhance performance or prevent them from going into heat; from keeping dogs in cages for more than 18 hours in any 24 hour period?
A YES vote would make it illegal to: (1) feed dogs raw or uncooked meat from diseased, dying, disabled animals or animals already dead upon arrival at the slaughterhouse; (2) give dogs anabolic steroids to enhance performance or suppress estrus; and (3) confine dogs in crates or cages smaller than 35 inches high by 45 inches long by 35 inches wide for more than 18 hours in any 24 hour period.
A NO vote would keep the City Animal Ordinance as it now exists.
The propaganda we've been delivered is insane. I called the Greyhound Park to ask them who their vet is (in order to look up complaints about him or her on the State Licensing Board website), among other questions, and I was unable to get a single person who was able/willing to talk to me. I wanted to know, once we got their crap about how the Park employs so many people and so many residents of South Tucson, how many they employed? Full-time? Union? Health benefits? Nothing.
It angers me.
It infuriates me. The propaganda also had allegations like, "Only rich people want to save the dogs! Tell the rich people we do what we want!"
My real fear is that the proposition will be defeated because of the attitude of acceptance of casual animal cruelty down here. One neighbor introduced himself as "the guy who got arrested for dogfighting a couple weeks back"- not exactly the man I expect to vote yes. I see dogs treated shamefully all around us, and that makes me worry for the dogs at the park. If people are unwilling to be kind to their pets (because I may call the kitties companions but this demographic sure as shit doesn't), why would they care about the health and wellbeing of dogs being used for sport?
I feel sad for its prospects and sadder still for the hounds.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Pending Rule Change
The Supreme Court of Arizona has enacted a rule change (effective 1/1/09) that I find somewhat disturbing- and I find it somewhat disturbing that I find it disturbing, too.
Under current rules, all trials open to the public are of course open to members of the print media, sans cameras. Reporters and photographers can make prior arrangements to use cameras in the courtroom. Starting the first of the year, that prior arrangement nonsense will be gone. Instead, should a judge wish to keep out cameras (and we'll get to that forthwith, I promise), he or she must stop the underlying proceedings and immediately hold a hearing on the admission of cameras- and I believe that standard is clear and convincing. This poses an inordinate burden on the court's ability to function as well as on the court's ability to maintain some semblance of order. I know that trials are circuses- believe me, I know- but making the default into "allow in all and sundry" makes for an even more circuslike environment.
Another concern is for witnesses. I've seen now what cameras in a courtroom do to a witness or defendant's ability to testify. Think about cases with reluctant witnesses: do you think that the camera's help that? What about when we're talking about pretrial proceedings? In-custody defendants appear in shackles and jumpsuits for those. In-custody defendants don't have (visible) restraints and wear appropriate going-to-court garb when they're on trial, in font of a jury, to avoid tainting the jury. When you have a market saturated with photos and videos of a defendant in chains, what does that do to her right to a fair trial starting with a fair and impartial jury pool?
I understand that the media, as the representative of the people, must be allowed almost unfettered access to courts. I guess my issue is really one of concern as to the inability of grown-ass reporters to call ahead. And I have a deep concern with the idea that the media truly looks to educate the people at large as to what the court looks and sounds like; while this justification has been advanced, successfully, I can't help but think that perhaps the public, should it want an inside look at trials rather than a sensationalized look at cherry-picked moments of high-profile cases, could head on down to the courthouse and have a seat in the gallery.
I'm uncomfortable with myself for feeling uncomfortable with a limitation of First Amendment rights, and I can't help it. Exercise of the right has a real potential to trample on the rights of others. There's no amendment or guiding language anywhere in the Constitution letting us know which rights have priority, and Lord knows that a strict constructionist would have to concede that our forefathers had no way of knowing that Court TV (now Tru TV) would be infatuated with the seamier elements of the courthouse, to the point that the viewing public became a second jury of sorts.
I think that all of this is most ably summed up by cnn.com changing the name of the section dealing with courts from "law" to "crime" on its website. That says terrible things about the public's true interest in the process, doesn't it?
Here's an article on the rule change: http://tucsoncitizen.com/daily/breakingnews/96841.php
Under current rules, all trials open to the public are of course open to members of the print media, sans cameras. Reporters and photographers can make prior arrangements to use cameras in the courtroom. Starting the first of the year, that prior arrangement nonsense will be gone. Instead, should a judge wish to keep out cameras (and we'll get to that forthwith, I promise), he or she must stop the underlying proceedings and immediately hold a hearing on the admission of cameras- and I believe that standard is clear and convincing. This poses an inordinate burden on the court's ability to function as well as on the court's ability to maintain some semblance of order. I know that trials are circuses- believe me, I know- but making the default into "allow in all and sundry" makes for an even more circuslike environment.
Another concern is for witnesses. I've seen now what cameras in a courtroom do to a witness or defendant's ability to testify. Think about cases with reluctant witnesses: do you think that the camera's help that? What about when we're talking about pretrial proceedings? In-custody defendants appear in shackles and jumpsuits for those. In-custody defendants don't have (visible) restraints and wear appropriate going-to-court garb when they're on trial, in font of a jury, to avoid tainting the jury. When you have a market saturated with photos and videos of a defendant in chains, what does that do to her right to a fair trial starting with a fair and impartial jury pool?
I understand that the media, as the representative of the people, must be allowed almost unfettered access to courts. I guess my issue is really one of concern as to the inability of grown-ass reporters to call ahead. And I have a deep concern with the idea that the media truly looks to educate the people at large as to what the court looks and sounds like; while this justification has been advanced, successfully, I can't help but think that perhaps the public, should it want an inside look at trials rather than a sensationalized look at cherry-picked moments of high-profile cases, could head on down to the courthouse and have a seat in the gallery.
I'm uncomfortable with myself for feeling uncomfortable with a limitation of First Amendment rights, and I can't help it. Exercise of the right has a real potential to trample on the rights of others. There's no amendment or guiding language anywhere in the Constitution letting us know which rights have priority, and Lord knows that a strict constructionist would have to concede that our forefathers had no way of knowing that Court TV (now Tru TV) would be infatuated with the seamier elements of the courthouse, to the point that the viewing public became a second jury of sorts.
I think that all of this is most ably summed up by cnn.com changing the name of the section dealing with courts from "law" to "crime" on its website. That says terrible things about the public's true interest in the process, doesn't it?
Here's an article on the rule change: http://tucsoncitizen.com/daily/breakingnews/96841.php
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
