Within the next few weeks, the destiny of the Arizona Department of Corrections will unfold – We are preparing for a nightmare that the director gets another 4 years to destabilize the agency and prepare the transition to privatization earlier than scheduled because the new governor will accelerate the process if that governor is not Ken Bennett.
Make no doubt about it:
Doug Ducey will privatize and reshape the retirement plans while dropping salaries and stipends
Christine Jones will privatize and reduce state spending and do nothing to improve workplace conditions
Scott Smith will privatize and reduce state spending on prisons
Frank Rigss and Andrew Thomas – although long shots will privatize and harm correctional benefits.
KEN BENNETT IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE TO STATE CLEARLY HE WILL BRING DIGNITY AND RESPECT BACK TO CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEES.
Don’t let the nightmare come true – save your job, your career, your benefits and vote smart – vote for the man who will preserve your employment and status.
PHOENIX (AP) — Illegal immigration took center stage Monday during a televised debate between six Republican candidates for Arizona governor.
Although the candidates discussed other topics that included education and the economy, illegal immigration drew the most pointed comments from them during the hour-long debate. The candidates at the debate were Ken Bennett, Doug Ducey, Christine Jones, Frank Riggs, Scott Smith and Andrew Thomas.
Click link to read complete story –
A guest commenter sent this email in to warn Corrections Employees of a new bully tactic -
ADOC’s random drug testing has begun, but they’re taking it too far in Tucson and soon a complex near you.
So far 3 employees have been told by the Warden to get their prescriptions changed to show not to be taken except for weekends or don’t go back to work. This is a Kind of a bully intervention. The policy even says anything but marihuana gets cleared as negative with a valid prescription. The rules are clear – here is your reference –
Generic website for a bit – Department Order 522, specifically 522.07 1.9.5 Report test results as negative if there is a legitimate medical explanation for the positive test result, with the exception of medical marijuana for those who hold a safety-sensitive position. Do not be bullied
Click this link for technical advice and information:
Andrew Thomas, a republican candidate for Governor of Arizona, has begun a televised ad campaign targeting illegal immigrants, the “gay lobby,” and liberal judges. The ad, which runs only thirty seconds, ends with a image of the Mexican flag shaped like the state of Arizona with a circle with a line through it over the image, symbolizing that Mexicans are not allowed in the state.
Click link for complete story
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1360793/arizona-politician-runs-controversial-racist-ad-in-race-for-governor/#wMyeMOr7CiZBOlUk.99
Change in leadership should not be for light or transient causes……we are disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, rather than right ourselves because we are used to our situation.
But eventually the long train of abuses means that change must occur. The history of our current leadership is well established and we could accept his tyrannical direction…….but when I hear blatant manipulation and outright aversion to the truth change must occur.
Last night the news discussed the teacher who was physically and sexually assaulted. Our leadership has stated that there were no lapses in security or staffing (ad lib); further the leadership has commented that we must accept bad things happen in prison.
But if we accept both the above what purpose do prisons serve if we cannot avoid these matters and why cannot we not accept for these events to occur?
For our leadership it has become plainly evident we are disposable…..the inmates can do bad things and its Ok cause we are in prison……..it is time for COs to stand up and be heard……if Bennett will change our leadership he has my vote…….it is time for good people to stand against the evil of the day
Andrei Cherny’s ad attacking Doug Ducey has the ex-Cold Stone CEO playing defense
My head’s been so buried in statistics for an upcoming feature that I missed a news conference last week for former Clinton advisor and Democratic contender for Arizona State Treasurer Andrei Cherny.
In it, the Cherny camp offered up several ex-Cold Stone Creamery franchisees whose tales of bankruptcy and woe belied former Cold Stone CEO Doug Ducey’s claims of being some sort of uber-businessman.
Ducey is the GOP trotter in the treasurer’s race, but the main qualification he touts as making him deserving of office — his supposed success in expanding Cold Stone’s franchise base — is now becoming a liability for him.
That’s because, as I detailed in an August Bird column, there’s an army of former franchisees from coast to coast that’d love to tar and feather Ducey for the business practices alleged of Cold Stone while he was the top canine there.
Cherny’s been running a TV ad featuring former franchisees Ken and Jennifer Gornall, who blast Ducey for having “cheated people out of their life’s investments.” Jennifer Gornall labels Ducey a “crook.” The spot’s drawn blood, and Ducey’s been forced to counter it with his own ad calling Cherny “desperate.”
more available at: http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2010/10/doug_duceys_record_at_cold_sto_1.php
Clear Choice Riggs is the strongest GOP candidate out there today. Here he is working out – Arizona’s own Arnold S and no shirt showing all of Arizona he has muscles.
He is the man – click on link for his YOUTUBE videos -
Straight out of Wikipedia a cover-up is an attempt, whether successful or not, to conceal evidence of wrongdoing, error, incompetence or other embarrassing information. In a passive cover-up, information is simply not provided; in an active cover-up, deception is used.
The expression is usually applied to people in positions of authority who abuse their power to avoid or silence criticism or to deflect guilt of wrongdoing.
Those who initiate a cover-up (or their allies) may be responsible for a misdeed, a breach of trust or duty or a crime. Others use deniable plausibility to be involved or accused of the acts.
While the terms are often used interchangeably, cover-up involves withholding incriminatory evidence, while whitewash involves releasing misleading evidence.
When a scandal breaks, the discovery of an attempt to cover up is often regarded as even more reprehensible than the original deeds.
The mildest case, not quite a cover-up, is simply to release news which could be embarrassing but is not important enough to guarantee attention at a time when other news is dominating the headlines, or immediately before a holiday or weekend.
Initially a cover-up may require little effort; it will be carried out by those closely involved with the misdeed. Once some hint of the hidden matter starts to become known, the cover-up gradually draws all the top leadership, at least, of an organization into complicity in covering up a misdeed or even crime that may have originally been committed by a few of its members acting independently. This may be regarded as tacit approval of that conduct
It is likely that some cover-ups are successful although by definition this cannot be confirmed. Many fail, however, as more and more people are drawn in and the possibility of exposure makes potential accomplices fearful of supporting the cover-up and as loose ends that may never normally have been noticed start to stand out. As it spreads, the cover-up itself creates yet more suspicious circumstances.
Cover-ups do not necessarily require the active manipulation of facts or circumstances. Arguably the most common form of cover-up is one of non-action. It is the conscious failure to release incriminating information by a third party.
This “passive cover-up” is often justified by the motive of not wanting to embarrass the culprit or expose them to criminal prosecution or even the belief that the cover-up is justified by protecting the greater community from scandal. Yet, because of the passive cover-up, the misdeed often goes undiscovered and results in harm to others ensuing from its failure to be discovered.
Real cover-ups are common enough, but any event which is not completely clear is likely to give rise to a thicket of conspiracy theories alleging covering up of sometimes the most weird and unlikely conspiracies.
People, governments or institutions may try to cover up if
• they are dishonest enough to wish to hide things that they should not conceal (hiding information is not in itself a cover-up);
• and they believe that they can successfully cover up the facts, either by effective concealment or using their authority and power to prevent investigation and publication;
• and they believe that public knowledge of the facts will harm them in some way, from long jail sentences through possible loss of electoral office to mere embarrassment;
• and they believe that the benefit of a successful cover-up outweighs the risk and harm to them of being caught covering up.
Sometimes an apparently simple and low-risk cover-up grows out of control. For example, an employee may take money covertly from his employer to finance something, in the expectation that (s)he will shortly return it with nobody being the wiser; but the money taken is lost, the employee cannot make good, and must dangerously extend the cover-up. The methods in actual cover-ups tend to follow the general order of the list below.
Initial response to allegation
1. Flat denial
2. Convince the media to bury the story
3. Preemptively distribute false information
4. Claim that the “problem” is minimal
5. Claim faulty memory
6. Claim the accusations are half-truths
7. Claim the critic has no proof
8. Attack the critic’s motive
9. Attack the critic’s character
Withhold or tamper with evidence
1. Prevent the discovery of evidence
2. Destroy or alter the evidence
3. Make discovery of evidence difficult
4. Create misleading names of individuals and companies to hide funding
5. Lie or commit perjury
6. Block or delay investigations
7. Issue restraining orders
8. Claim executive privilege
Delayed response to allegation
1. Deny a restricted definition of wrongdoing (e.g. torture)
2. Limited hang out (i.e., confess to minor charges)
3. Use biased evidence as a defense
4. Claim that the critic’s evidence is biased
5. Select a biased blue ribbon commission or “independent” inquiry
Intimidate participants, witnesses or whistleblowers
1. Bribe or buy out the critic
2. Generally intimidate the critic by following him or her, killing pets, etc.
3. Blackmail: hire private investigators and threaten to reveal past wrongdoing (“dirt”)
4. Death threats of the critic or his or her family
5. Threaten the critic with loss of job or future employment in industry
6. Transfer the critic to an inferior job or location
7. Intimidate the critic with lawsuits or SLAPP suits
8. Murder; assassination
1. Bribe the press
2. Secretly plant stories in the press
3. Retaliate against hostile media
4. Threaten the press with loss of access
5. Attack the motives of the press
6. Place defensive advertisements
7. Buy out the news source
1. Claim no knowledge of wrongdoing
2. Scapegoats: blame an underling for unauthorized action
3. Fire the person(s) in charge
Win court cases
1. Hire the best lawyers
2. Hire scientists and expert witnesses who will support your story
3. Delay with legal maneuvers
4. Influence or control the judges
Reward cover-up participants
1. Hush money
2. Little or no punishment
3. Pardon or commute sentences
4. Promote employees as a reward for cover-up
5. Reemploy the employee after dust clears