Blog For Arizona

Send John Shadegg Packing

It's time for John Shadegg to go. Arizona's CD 3 has been targeted as one of the 40 districts of interest for a turn over by the DCCC in 2008. A loss by Shadegg would be a major blow the national GOP, not to mention giving Democrats a majority in our House delegation.

Shadegg ran unsuccessfully for majority leader when DeLay resigned in disgrace, resigning his chairmanship of the Republican Policy Committee. More recently, Shadegg is credited with orchestrating the caucus "no confidence" vote on the Senate immigration reform package that finally killed the effort. In all, I'd say Arizona would be far better off without John Shadegg in office, and luckily, we have a candidate in CD 3, Bob Lord, who is proving that he has what it takes to bring down a powerful incumbent ideologue like Shadegg: solid fundraising.

Bob Lord stunned almost everyone with his ability to raise funds in CD 3, posting 138K in his first quarter's reporting. But, as we all know, politics is about momentum and Bob has to demonstrate his first quarter isn't a fluke. He's been tapping donors in his personal business network until now, but he needs to expand his donor base into the grassroots to sustain the campaign, retain momentum, and build the war chest he'll need. That means we of the netroots need to step up if we want to take down Shadegg this cycle.

Today is the final day of the FEC reporting cycle, so your donations will make the greatest media impact if given today. Go to Bob's Act Blue page and give what you can afford. What is another Democratic seat in Arizona worth to you?

Drinking Liberally Tucson now on Facebook

Drinking Liberally Tucson is trying out Facebook to help build community and foster greater participation by members. We have started a group on Facebook, and Drinking Liberally events will now be posted there as well.

If you don't have a Facebook account I encourage you to try it; it's free and it isn't just for college students anymore, it's a serious networking tool, with a good dollop of fun still mixed in that is missing from more buttoned-up tools like Linked In.

What to do on 7/7/7

Live Earth is coming: find a local event near you.

So far, there are several events planned in Phoenix and one in Tucson (which is free). Sign up. Volunteer to to help out. Not only is it going to be good fun with lots of great music, but it's a chance to meet others in your community concerned about the global environment.

I'll be there. I hope you will be, too.

Incarcerex

Boy, if there's one thing the Libertarians are good for, it's having the guts (and lack of electoral exposure) to advocate for fundamental reform of our out-of-control drug policy. This spoof ad is a real gem:

A Progressive Immigration Policy

Progressives have been reactive in the face of the immigration debate for too long. One of my favorite blogger/journalists, Dave Neiwert of Orcinus, is planning to attempt to articulate a clear and powerful statement of a progressive position on immigration. I think that's a fine idea and I plan to keep an ear to ground to see what he comes up with. He's a powerful writer and a deeply perceptive journalist. I had a few things to say on the subject so I left an extended comment on his site that I reproduce (with more than a little copy editing) here:

"I agree with your premise that Progressives are failing to frame the immigration issue in a way that highlights our values and outlines an optimal policy. Instead, we seem to be trying to just take positions that are friendly enough to immigrants not seem racist, but responsive enough to the fear on the right not to draw too much fire. That is a flaccid excuse for a position on such an important issue.

My view is that immigration is our future and the demographic savior of American power. As other advanced economies suffer from negative population growth and aging populations, America, due mainly to immigration (including undocumented), is aging far more gracefully. As we square off for economic competition from the burgeoning young populations of China, India, Indonesia, Brazil and others, we will become ever more thankful for a refreshing stream of young, ambitious, reproductively assiduous immigrants. I think Progressives should fundamentally view immigration as a blessing and an opportunity, not a burden or threat. Our heritage as a nation of immigrants is a living fact, not a nostalgic relic, because we have always needed immigrants to remain vital, and will continue to need them for the foreseeable future.

We must also recognize the economic context in which immigration arises: a good portion of immigrants to the U.S. from Mexico and Latin America can fairly be termed economic refugees. They are coming because they are desperate to survive and to make a better future and have no other way available to them. This refugee crisis is largely in response to the disruptive effects of trade and finance deals happening way over their heads - and over our own, frankly. NAFTA, CAFTA, IMF, WTO: understanding the role of these alphabet soups, and the brute facts of globalization is fundamental to controlling the forces that are sending refugees across our border and stirring up a new wave of populist politics across Latin America. We also should take a long, hard look at our national policies in agriculture, trade, and taxation that contribute to the problem. A good example is our agricultural subsidy policy that harms our farmers and dumps under-market price commodity crops on world markets, running local farmers off the land and into cities, and ultimately onto our own shores.

We also must address the conditions and terms under which undocumented immigrants live in our society. We have an overriding legitimate security interest in controlling our borders and knowing who is coming into and living in this country. Identifying those here illegally and providing a licit means to enter the country should be our primary goals from a national security standpoint; that fundamental goal cannot be held hostage to some pipe-dream of repatriation. Those who are holding up our vital security needs should be made to pay a political price for their subordination of our national security to their xenophobia and desire to act punitively toward 'illegal' immigrants. The idea of deportation, or 'touch-backs', or heavy fines, or any such nonsense, simply discourages people from compliance with our fundamental security interest. We want people to identify themselves so we know who is in our country, and travel here openly and legally so we can concentrate our border efforts at the real bad guys; anything that prevents us from reaching our primary security goal should be rejected. We have to break the power of the "amnesty" and "immigrants as criminals" framing, and do away with these as talismans of political combat. This sort of approach to immigration policy creates the sort of hypocritical and "hot button" policy making that has characterized the GOP-led Arizona legislature and in many other state legislatures for the past several years.

I think progressives should also fundamentally reject the idea of a 'guest worker' program. We have the historical evidence of how a Bracero-type program is likely to fail. We can predict that it will do two things, undermine American workers' rights, and exploit guest workers by placing them at the mercy of employers to whom our immigration policy would be outsourced. Fundamentally, progressives should support the idea of simply giving all workers, regardless of legal status or nationality, the same rights and standing for all laws related to workers rights and benefits, as has been done for minimum wage laws in California and New York. Such an approach is politically difficult, but it will discourage economic refugees by reducing demand for their labor and make their rights before the law more self-enforcing. Read more about the role of strengthening workplace rights in immigration reform at the Drum Major Institute. I think there also may be some merit to the idea of using a degree of economic coercion to gain compliance, however, like the idea to set up a savings fund using a portion of a foreign worker's pay and only releasing it to them when they return home. There may also be a role for temporary worker visas, but that should really be addressed in a bilateral or multilateral renegotiation of trade terms. Labor mobility and residence should be fully a two way street. In general, however, we should improve the lot of immigrant workers the same way we address the needs of American workers, by empowerment in the law, not by giving corporate employers more power over the lives of workers.

Lastly, I think Progressives should very firmly oppose any move to change immigration and naturalization law to try to create new categories of resident aliens that have any less rights than legal residents (such as "guest workers") and should also denounce any move away from principle of family unification and citizenship by virtue of birth in the US. The whole "anchor baby" cant is extremely offensive and disturbing. We must not create a multi-generational underclass here as they have done in some parts of Europe with guest worker programs; we mustn't emulate abject failure.

I look forward to the results of this project. We sorely need something to stand for in this debate that is not just hunkering down pusillanimously between armed camps (the strategy our elected Democrats are adopting wholesale), or hitching our cart to immigrants' rights protest marches."

I'm very interested to hear the ideas of (most of) my readers on the subject of what a progressive position on immigration should look like and how best to engage in the battle of ideas that is raging around us.

Ash for Arizona

Link: Ash for Arizona - Radio Ediorials.

So Bruce Ash is the new Republican National Committeeman for Arizona.

I love this guy! Just listen to some of his radio opinion pieces, not to mention examining his personal and political associations, and you will find not a rational pro-business Republican moderate (which would be bad for Democrats electorally) but a man who carts around a bubble of his own personal reality.

Now, many might think that my delight over the Arizona GOP choosing a guy like Bruce conflicts with my stated desire for a saner, more moderate GOP. Not so. The more extreme the GOP's leadership becomes, the easier they become to defeat electorally, and the easier time traditional conservatives will have wresting leadership away from the extremists down amongst the wreckage of their party. In order for insurgencies to work, insurgents generally have to blow things up real good before they can take over. Bruce's radio firebombs are doing the Lord's own work.

Let's visit Bruce in the private reality he's created for himself.

Bruce thinks the war on terrorism is going badly (audio). His suggestion as to how to fix it? A new unaccountable, unelected 'War Cabinet' layer of bureaucracy, because we can't trust the nation's security to mere democratically elected leaders in Congress to judge what's best for the nation. Why does he think we're losing? Well, he doesn't come out and say it, but his contemptuous reference to our "rules of engagement" seems to suggest that he believes we simply aren't committing enough atrocities in Iraq. If only we could really take the gloves off, we could win, is Bruce's real message. Of course, Bruce also thinks it's a terrible idea to set a timetable for withdrawal (audio), for all the usual specious reasons, and he chastises Gaby Giffords on the issue: unfortunately, she seems to have listened to him and even adopted his reasoning.

Bruce also thinks that spying on Americans and torturing our prisoners of war is a dandy idea, one that separates the men (Republicans) from the boys (Democrats). He castigates Congressional Democrats for rejecting legislation that would have authorized such violations of our values, even as he derides terrorists for their ruthlessness. Yet, even as he speciously denounces Democrats as being soft on terrorists for standing up for human and civil rights, he calls for greater civility in public affairs. It really is refreshing to see someone so blissfully unselfconscious.

Between Randy Pullen, Russell Pearce, and Bruce Ash, we may be entering a golden age of idiocy in Arizona state politics.

The Insurgency on the Right

I'm helping the Ron Paul supporters with their local organizing. I have attended two Ron Paul meetups and intend to continue lending a hand. Why would I, a confirmed liberal, want to help Republicans organize for a Republican candidate? Well, by the end of this post, I hope a lot of you will want to do the same.

Like many liberals I am deeply disturbed by the political environment in the Republican party. They are quickly becoming (if they are not already) the party of American fascism, and that fascism is marching draped in the flag and carrying a crucifix. But it is not just liberals that see this trend clearly. Many conservatives see it too, and they don't like it any better than we.

It could be that the GOP is beyond redemption. It could be that all we can do is hope to beat the snot out of GOP candidates in enough races to preserve our Constitution and our democracy. I don't think that is realistic or wise. In order to preserve the integrity of our political system, we need a loyal opposition whichever party is in power; the GOP is increasingly nothing of the sort, and only reform from within can correct that.

It is purely self interest for Democrats to support and encourage those within the Republican party who are real, Constitution-respecting, small government conservatives to retake their party. The fascist wing of the GOP doesn't see the Democratic party, or any opposition, as legitimate; real conservatives do. We are in the fight of our lives against those who would make opposition to their designs to radically alter our society a crime and use the powers of government to destroy their enemies. Our natural allies in that fight are not just other liberals (we are weakened if we limit our alliances such) but those in the other party who are just as disturbed by the past 6 years as we.

The only way that major parties have ever reformed is from within. It is going to take a massive grassroots revolt within the Republican party to remake the party. Many progressive Democrats have some experience with that as our own party continues to experience such a beneficial grassroots activist insurgency. Both parties have been hollowed-out in recent years as more citizens become alienated from the political process and civic affairs. The result is that well-organized ideologues with fringe ideologies and lots of money have been able to effectively capture both parties. The main difference is that our ideologues aren't nearly so malignant or vicious as theirs. Conservatives will face some seriously nasty and deeply motivated activists to retake their parties; progressives faced mostly ossified indifference and little organized resistance to greater participation at the local level.

Those of us who are organizing and encouraging a reformation within our own party have an opportunity to forge ties with like-minded insurgents in the other party. Those links will be the basis of future cooperation both sides will need to retake our political patrimony from the cynical manipulators who have seized both parties, and to move our nation forward with a fundamental respect for civil rights and our nation's vital traditions.

By helping Ron Paul supporters, we help ourselves. We don't have to agree on every issue to agree on fundamental respect for the Constitution, respect for civil rights, and respect for the integrity of our democratic process. Clearly, not everyone supports those values anymore; those that do, despite any policy differences we may have, are objectively allies in the fight to keep the American experiment alive.

There is only a small spark of respect for American civic values in the GOP's nomination contest. That spark is Ron Paul. But there is a massive reservoir of people who can nurture that spark into a prairie fire of reform within the GOP. We progressives need to ensure that the spark doesn't die out and that the real conservatives among the Republicans and Independents on the right have a chance to catch that spark.

I don't want to see another Republican President any more than the next Democrat. But I do want to see a Republican nominee who stands up for civil rights, who speaks sensibly about America's place in the world, who insists on the rule of law and rejects the exceptionalism and emergency powers advocated by every other GOP candidate. I want to see the Republican part rally around a voice that is not encouraging them to tear apart the Constitution in fear of terrorism. I want to see a Republican nominee who will enable the American people to experience a campaign of hope and ideas, not of fear and McCarthyism.

There is only one way I can see to make that happen: do everything we can to ensure that the GOP nominee is Ron Paul (as unlikely as it seems right now). Howard Dean was never expected and his rise was extremely unlikely, but now he heads the DNC and is bringing many progressive values to the party's operations. Reform is an ongoing and protracted process, especially for part-time citizen activists. There are conservatives out there hungry for an honest voice that reflects their values: a Dean-like surge could happen in the GOP (indeed, it seems to be the only thing that can save the party) and we Democrats should encourage such a revolt.

So break out your checkbooks and donate to Ron Paul. Get off your duffs help organize Ron Paul events and spread the message of Constitutionalism among our conservative brothers. Stop thinking in purely partisan terms and start thinking strategically. The GOP nomination is just as important as our own nomination contest. Perhaps even more so, since at least all of our candidates support the Constitution and the rule of law. This is our fight, too.

Growing Weakness in the American Political Process

Fred Thompson, just by forming an exploratory committee, and before voters can possibly have a good idea of what he actually stands for, or who he is other than that guy on Law and Order, has vaulted into second place in the GOP field. This is a clear indication of the weak and flimsy support the GOP field is attracting, and the desire of GOP voters for a savior.

Giuliani retains the lead for now, but many are starting to see his authoritarian, condescending, manipulative ways, and see through his media-built reputation as a "hero" of 9/11. But I don't think that Thompson or Romney will hold up much better as a standard bearer for the GOP, either. There is every chance that horse as dark as Dean in 2004 will emerge to seriously contest the GOP nomination.

I sincerely hope it is someone like Ron Paul, who can begin to guide the GOP back to traditional conservative policies and values and away from the increasing fascist tone I'm hearing. But I fear that the nominee might end up being a standard bearer for the new minority power in the GOP (the Christian dominionists) such as Brownback or Huckabee, just like the nominee for the Democrats ended up being Kerry, the scion of the new minority power in the Democratic party (the corporatist DLC) in 2004.

Nor is a certain fatigue with the front-runners limited to the Republicans. Hillary reputedly didn't even want to announce until August or September of this year, fearing voter fatigue with her as the front-runner. Her hand was forced by the announcement of so many others, especially Obama. I think it is clear that with Gore in 3rd place in opinion polls, despite not actually running, that Democrats, too, are hoping for a new champion to emerge every bit as much as Republicans. If Gore were to announce an exploratory committee, I suspect the bump would launch him into first or second place immediately.

If there is a lesson to all this, it could be to keep your powder dry as long as possible in this political environment. Politics have become so negative and cynical, and voters so disillusioned, that it is hard for candidates to prevent their negatives from piling up over time, even if they are running a mainly positive primary campaign.

Perhaps this all points to a late entering independent campaign as the best strategy for this election cycle. With both Democrats and Republicans more fed-up with own parties than ever before, and so many registered independents in the electorate, the best candidates might be those who simply skip the entire tiresome nominating process and run straight at the general. With Mike Bloomberg making noises about financing his own independent run at the White House, and clearly having the means to pay the $500 million price tag of a serious general election campaign, he and whomever he selects as a running mate might just be the ultimate white knights for voters. If so, a self-financed independent President would spell the beginning of the end of party politics as we know them in the United States. When neither of the major-party nominees can capture the Presidency, the system has so broken down that one, or both, parties are walking fatalities and simply don't realize it yet.

The big question then becomes will the parties pick themselves up and reform to capture disaffected independents and non-voters, or will American politics become the wholly-owned province of entrepreneurial candidates wealthy enough to self-finance without any party support or constraints? If it is the latter, look for viable candidates to start hiring military contractors like Blackwater for their campaigns' "security" needs, and start preparing for the end of the American Republic.

Never Again

It frightens me. How implacably can we oppose our fellow citizen's access to power before we find ourselves at war, and not just metaphorically? How much can we despise our fellow citizen's choices before we grow to hate them personally? Are we in danger of becoming a society divided against itself? I won't claim to know any answers. I'm not even sure I want to ask the questions. What prompted my musings is reading the following exchange between two Republicans on a blog:

"If the GOP has any principles, we would not lionize him [Bush], we would kick him the hell out of the party."

"The hell with that. We had principles in 1992 when we jumped ship to go with Perot, and all that got us was Bill Clinton for 8 years. That will not happen again .... ever."

Never again? Never again 8 years of prosperity and relative peace and safety. Never again 8 years of real economic gains by the middle-class. Never again to have a policy driven Administration that tries to implement policy that improves people's lives, not just supports the Administration's poll numbers or pays back its donors. Clinton was far from perfect, and did a lot of damaging things I did not favor and do not praise, but he did not threaten the Constitutional order, act in an egregiously anti-democratic manner, or overtly threaten the long-term well-being of the nation.

To prevent another Democrat from taking power, the commenter is willing to throw away all principles. He will endure all indignities to his nation, so long as its molester is a member of his own party. How can one reconcile oneself to be a fellow citizen to one who consciously rejects all principle just to prevent the other party from having any power or influence?

Is there a line that they won't cross? Already the Republicans gladly suffered the theft of an election, claiming all the while that it was Gore who wished to steal the election. Already they have hailed a President who stole the authority of Congress with lies, broken international law with a sneer, murdered thousands of Iraqis in an inexplicable rush to war, and swept away the most fundamental of American liberties with hardly a qualm to insulate himself against any charge of being "soft on terror". Daily the evidence of the perfidy and corruption of Bush Administration mounts, yet a core of Republicans continue to stand by their leader. Not in ignorance, not in denial, but in defiance and with contempt for the very standards they claim to love. The party and the voters of the GOP stand fast with a President who is quite simply a criminal. "My country, right or wrong," has become, "My party, right or wrong." They have abandoned the ideals of democracy for the lure of power.

How can one resist despising such hypocrisy? How can one resist hating the hypocrites? How can a nation continue, divided by hatred and contempt and a dearth of shared values? I have heard the current era compared to the Civil War era, and truly there are parallels between the two. That era was also one of great economic and social change; modernity was emerging in the North, at odds with the agrarian economy of the South. The corporation was emerging as a subject of Constitutional protections and growing into it's role as society's primary economic form.

Today, we face another turning point. A decision is being made whether the primary political unit of organization will also be those corporations. Having already achieved a political status above individuals in international agreements such as NAFTA, those controlling the corporations, and most of the wealth of our society, are making a final push for political mastery of our society.

The GOP abets that design, so do some in the Democratic party; but many still resist and seek to take back control of the party. The result of this struggle will utterly transform our way of life, win or lose. The stakes are just as high, the values at stake just as fundamental, the positions just as implacable as ever they were in the Civil War. The question now, however, is not whether some Americans will remain in bondage, but whether all Americans are to enter it. Our system of democratic government is nearly gone. The empty fiction that remains is nearly impervious to reform. Only those who agree to play by the rules of the moneyed interests are allowed access to any significant amount of political power.

Once the issue is clear and the sides are drawn, the question becomes why is anyone (other than the 5% or so of the population directly benefited by corporate domination) on the GOP's side? They have selected their messages well. Religion and nationalism: the two things that have motivated people to organized murder for so many centuries, and that are unquestionably reliable to secure unthinking loyalty in the face of even outright betrayal by the leaders.

Religion is used shamelessly by the GOP and even freely injected into the political process to keep religious adherents happy. The GOP does not fear the government being taken over by religion, because their grip is too sure. If anything, the danger seems to be of government taking over religion. History teaches how easily government seduces religious authority with secular power and wealth. However, strong religious affiliations alone are not sufficient to garner a majority in this country; that why the GOP works vigorously to present itself as having a corner on nationalism.

The GOP has succeeded in equating nationalism and patriotism with belligerence toward others and loyalty to the GOP. The central myth of the nationalism in America is centered in our special role in civilization, the idea of America as the city on the hill. Anyone, or any nation, which thwarts, or seems prepared to challenge that special role is an enemy and must be put down.

Very astutely, the GOP under Bush has realized that in the absence of any significant check on US military power, the special role of the US has a much wider ambit of exercise, even to the point of naked aggression. Their vision of the world calls for our dictates, standards, laws, and priorities to be accepted completely by the entire world. Ultimately, the ability to carry forward this vision is a vain illusion, and no amount of military force would be sufficient to subdue the world beneath an American yoke. Yet this madness  is now a major theme which the GOP uses to secure electoral loyalty. Being part of the world's strongest nation and rooting for its success is a very compelling cause for many. Reality will be a like a jackboot in the face for these voters eventually, just as it was in a rising Third Reich where citizens felt themselves on the brink of a new order lasting a millennium. But for now, the illusion of omnipotent sovereignty over the world is an undeniably powerful vote-getter.

The fact that reality is quite shabby in comparison to the Neo-Cons' fevered dreams is something that cannot be pointed out without being labeled a traitor and un-American. For instance, we are now occupying two quite minor nations with relatively small populations, in addition to our normal basing deployments. Our forces and military budgets are stretched beyond the breaking point by even this relatively minor exertion of ‘imperial might’, and we are stalemated and are losing the war in both theaters of combat. Modern war does not lend itself to final victories, or permanent peace, short of ‘final solutions’; and I do not believe that even the Bush Administration is capable of going that far.

The Bush Administration has made us weak while seeking to exert our strength. If we wanted to, or were compelled to invade another small country, such as Libya, Syria, Iran, or North Korea, we could not do so without at least a year to ready new units or pulling out of one or both current theaters. If we faced a major battle, such as with China over Taiwan, or trying to separate India and Pakistan, we simply would be overrun. Even North Korea invading South Korea would likely cost tens of thousands of American lives and take well over a year to repulse according to the Pentagon's own estimates.

To call America a Superpower by virtue of anything other than the dominance of its nuclear arsenal is a misnomer; at best, we are a Pluralpower. We can likely defeat any one or two minor enemies, whomever it is, but we cannot take on the world. Even in a conflict with another major military power we could not win outright without a prolonged and costly struggle. The GOP would like to convince people of the idea that we can defeat any nation, on any battlefield, at any time and in any combination; just "bring 'em on".

But their careful target selection tells the real story of the American strength of arms. We attack Iraq, and Afghanistan, but ally with Syria, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia though a case can easily be made to treat them as hostile. Why? We cannot easily defeat those nations. We invade Iraq at the drop of a hat, only talk tough with North Korea, and forthrightly appease the whims of China. Why? We likely cannot defeat China without a nuclear exchange. Defeat of North Korea would be very costly and take significant time. In Iraq, however, the military planners thought that "major combat operations" would be over in days, weeks at most.

Iraq was a rotted tree held up only by its bark after a dozen years of sanctions; one push and the whole structure would topple. A dandy little made for television war; a mini-series of destruction and ratings bonanza for the networks and the Administration. They didn't count on the army of termites inside, however.

We smear the Europeans, call them names, and defy them, but we never threaten military retaliation and we back off when they rattle their economic sabres seriously. Why? They have the economic might to devastate us and the military might to resist us. Far from being the towering Superhero of the world, we are just a very powerful nation, yet with limits as severe as all others. Even if we wanted to dominate the Middle East militarily, we could not without the cooperation of many nations in the region. Far from promoting our interests, our invasion of Iraq will harm us in the long run for just that reason. The nations of the region will turn away from their endemic conflicts to drive out the interloper in a myriad of quiet and effective ways.

One reason often given for the invasion of Iraq is as a warning to others in the region. It is only in the perfect theoretical conjectures of the Neo-Cons that nations tremble because you invade another country. Iran is likely figuring out about now how to grab territory along the Shatt al-Arab and other lands with Shi'ite majorities when we pull out, leaving a weak and disunified Iraq. Turkey is likely plotting how to keep the Kurds from forming a separate oil-weathy state from which to launch a revanchist Kurdish nation. Syria likely has similar territorial and economic plans as Iran. Pakistani radicals are no doubt already sending personnel into Iraq and waiting only until the Americans are gone to begin building their Madrassas and training up a new generation of America-hating terrorists amid the rubble of Iraq. The nations surrounding Iraq see this as an opportunity, not as a warning. They see a power vacuum. Where once there was resistance to their designs, there is now only an isolated puppet government, ripe for the plucking.

The GOP has likely set back Arab-American relations by a few generations with their stunt, but it was able to gain a temporary electoral advantage from it. They have begun to act without reference for the future. Perhaps Dick Cheney's reaction to Paul O’Neill’s plea for fiscal discipline indicates the parlous nature of the GOP's philosophy of governance best. When pressed on the matter, Cheney told O'Neill that the additional tax cuts were 'their due' from victory in the 20020mid-terms, and that Reagan had 'proved that deficits don't matter.' As long as you have a decade or so for your opponents to act responsibly and clean them up, he forgot to mention.

The GOP has become an irresponsible and soulless organization. It has become a corporation whose products are platitudes and whose sole goal is getting votes, rather than making money. Just as a corporation is constitutionally unable to act in an ethical manner if it conflicts with the bottom line, the GOP has become incapable of responding to the call of prudence, long-term well-being of the nation, or idealism if it conflicts with the getting of votes, and the money to propagandize those votes.

The GOP is undergoing a final stage crisis. The investors in a corporation require their creation to return to them maximum profit, irrespective of the harm it may do in the world. The adherents of a party, who invest their loyalty to gain power in the government, are not so dedicated to short-term gains. They have families, jobs, a need to eat, drink, breathe, a desire for a life without war and fear, a conscience which desires the world intact and the government solvent and limited so as to pass these good things on their children. They will not long tolerate this reckless behavior once the cows are clearly seen to be coming home to pasture.

Already it is happening. I have never seen so many members of the President's own party so disgusted by his actions, so concerned about the complete recklessness of his policies. Many of them are well-educated, well-informed people who can count the cost of Bush's follies for themselves. They are the intellectual and cultural heart of any successful party and they are bleeding out of the GOP in droves.

As is often the case, greatest victory, greatest power, and greatest confidence precedes an inevitable, and often terminal, decline. The GOP may be in it's last bitter moments as the vision they have sought after for a quarter of a century has finally come to fruition; the government is being run like a corporation, and the result is evil itself. For so long now, the icon of virtuous behavior is the profit maximizing, amoral, strict hierarchy, and unaccountable power of the corporation and the free market. They have achieved their goal. The Bush Administration is the apotheosis of the Conservative world-view and the very model of corporate governance in the public sector. A Harvard MBA, a capitalist who would use any means to achieve wealth and power, has the reins of government, and he used them to drive the government and our nation straight into a wall.

They say that in a free society power is ultimately checked by faction. It is the very foundational principle our nation was built upon. In this case, I believe that faction will combine with self-destruction to end the Bush Administration and the dominance of the GOP far sooner than most expect. I believe in the bedrock common sense and distrust of power of the American people. I also believe that just as the values of corporate America have hit a wall for now, driving companies like Enron, Worldcom, and Global Crossing to the very heights of power and wealth, only to be dashed to earth by the hollowness of their own venality and shell games. The Bush Administration and the Right Wing dominated GOP have hit the limits of the morally permissible.

In hindsight, we will marvel at how rank their motives and how hollow their rhetoric was. We will shake our heads in wonder that we didn't see clearly from the outset, what small, grasping and greedy little men we entrusted our nation's well-being to. And we will pickup the pieces, re-evaluate our standards, strengthen the breaches in the public's oversight that they exploited, and move on. The damage they have done is grave, but we had forgotten many vital lessons of history and needed reminding.

This time, perhaps we won't forget so soon.

Arkansas GOP Chief Stupider Than Ours?

Link: Arkansas GOP head: We need more 'attacks on American soil' so people appreciate Bush.

"At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country."

Wow. And I thought Randy Pullen was doing a heck of job undermining the GOP from within. He's got nothing on this guy...

Frameshop: My Abortion Troll

A few years ago I was inspired by a visit to an online anti-abortion forum to pen a troll to try to get anti-abortion activists to think more seriously about the woman part of the abortion equation. To that end, I pretended to take an ultra-hard, secular anti-abortion position so that they would have nothing to push against in the abortion stand, and would hopefully have to address the civil rights and humanitarian issues I raise. I don't recall it meeting with any notable success, but I was cleaning out the old aluminum platter and ran across it again. I have never published it here because, it doesn't actually reflect my views on abortion. I do not believe that a developing fetus has any ethical significance until it has the neurological equipment to experience pain, and even then its rights are severely limited until it is viable apart from the mother. But, despite the rather vociferous characterization of abortion as bait for the fundies, it does actually reflect some of my feelings about an ultimate way for our society to abandon the endless cultural tug-of-war over a fairly crude reproductive technology. Ultimately, the only way for America to heal the rift is to make abortion an obsolete technique, and that it will take both technological innovation and a new social compact with women to make that happen. Hopefully, you might find it as thought-provoking as I intended.

I get so tired of people pussy-footing around the only real issue regarding abortion - murder. Not "taking a viable life", not "deciding to end a pregnancy"; Abortion is murder. A life begins at conception and is terminated prematurely by an abortionist. Eventually, both the doctor who carries out the hit and the woman who contracts for it should be treated no differently than any other murderers; including death penalty eligibility. God and the Bible have nothing to do with it. One need not believe in God to hold that human life and its preservation is the highest of moral values. I myself am an atheist.

Nor is there is any reason for making an exception to the ban on murder for cases of rape or incest. The resultant child is not morally culpable for the bad acts that gave it life. That would be like allowing murder given other conditions that are beyond the victim's control. Imagine if, as a society, we allowed people to be murdered because they were black, or Jewish, or gay. That would be evil indeed. The only exception to a ban on murder of the unborn can be when the life of the mother is threatened in the opinion of a doctor. A universally recognized exception to the prohibition against killing is in the defense of one's own life.

Abortion is a horrible blunt instrument of death that we have become accustomed to using in making reproductive decisions. Given the advanced state of medical science and reproductive technology, it is time to put down our cruder instruments as unfit for a civilized and scientific age. But as we put away the barbarous tools of the past, we also must ensure that women do not lose their freedom and equality as we eliminate this reproductive technology. Abortion is unfortunately a necessary choice for some women. Imagine, if you can, being a young single woman, having no functional family for support, dependent upon an hourly job with few if any benefits. You become pregnant despite birth control and the father refuses support for you or your child. You have few choices. If you have the child you will most likely be fired because of time away from work and lose any benefits you have, including health care . You could end up trapped in welfare, descend into poverty and homelessness. Because of how society has structured the choices available to women in these circumstances it is understandable that many would choose to have an abortion. We can and must fix that.

Women have more freedom than ever in the history of humankind to control the timing and conditions of their reproduction. They can choose from a wide selection of birth control technologies. Such freedom is wonderful for women and I fully endorse it. I do not want women subjugated or made into brood-mares. But given all the options women now have and our vast wealth as a nation, we can build a system of reproductive support and healthcare in which women need not use abortion. In those cases where technology fails and a contraceptive does not work, or, tragically, a woman is inseminated against her will, there is no excuse to commit murder. A just society would protect the unborn, find the child a loving home or seriously (not stintingly) assist that women in raising the child, and/or compensate the woman for her legitimate losses of time and opportunity in creation of a new citizen. There must be a social safety net under non-lethal reproductive choices if society is to fairly discard this outdated and brutal, but currently useful, technology.

Given the will and the leadership, we could provide a workable system of social supports that allow women to safeguard their futures without resorting to killing their children. If we are going to ask women to sacrifice so that society may abandon the murderous tool of abortion, we must help them financially and legally. Once the pro-life movement realizes that women are not always 'at fault' when unplanned and unwanted pregnancies occur, once it is purged of its well deserved reputation for anti-woman bias and once they begin lobbying in favor of options for women, rather than restrictions solely, then we may finally be able to wash the blood off our hands and put down the abortionist's tools forever. It will take more than finger pointing, invocations of God and self-righteous indignation to fix a problem than is so deeply divisive. It will take compromise and wise policy choices to allow women to let go of the option of killing. But do it we must, and we must do it with fairness and respect for women, or abortion will simply slip underground and be more dangerous for women while continuing to murder our future.

The tactics and rhetoric of the Pro-life and Pro-choice movements are both short-sighted and stupid. Pro-lifers want to impose their moral vision (which, while I think it is the correct view, I do not think that public policy in a democracy can be made by fiat) and also impose the costs of that policy on women. They do not examine the real social or economic costs to women of bearing or raising children they do not want. The tip of that iceberg is glimpsed in the recent discovery of strong correlations between the major dip in crime rates in the 1990s with the onset of legalized abortion in 1973.  The idea that the existing adoption system is adequate should we end legal abortion is facile and dead wrong. We must examine carefully what the cost will be to women and make solid political and legal commitments to cover those costs if we are serious about our convictions. Pro-lifers often insist that women are simply bad for choosing abortion. I don't think that. I think society is bad for allowing so many women to make such a disastrously immoral choice. Moral decisions are always made in the context of the greater society. We only hold people strictly accountable for poor choices only when they had other viable choices, understood the consequences and decided wrongly anyway. Our society is like a person with diminished mental capacity concerning abortion. We demand that women be equals and we hold them to the same standards in economic competition, yet increasingly expect them to bear the entire cost of human biological imperatives. We treat the consequences of unwanted pregnancy solely as a personal matter, when if fact it is an issue of public policy and great social consequence. We are divided in our minds over whether abortion is killing or just another reproductive choice. Thus society gives women no clear moral guidance on the issue. Until we resolve these issues and do so equitably, holding women solely and fully accountable for poor moral choices is simply hypocritical and unjustly punitive. Thus, in the opening paragraph I qualified with 'eventually'.

Pro-choice advocates are little better. They know that they cannot meet the charge of Pro-lifers that abortion is killing. They have become adept at spinning out barely plausible rhetoric to avoid, obscure or ignore this central moral issue; they know that by facing it squarely they have lost the moral high-ground. One thing is clear, abortion is killing. If you are Pro-choice, look deep in your heart and I know you find an acknowledgment that abortion ends a life. It doesn't matter if that life is 'potential', or 'unquickened', or not yet really a child. These are excuses, sophistry, splitting linguistic hairs. No amount of equivocation or solemn invocation of rights can change this central fact. It is the one issue which Pro-choice advocates just can't get around. Pro-choice therefore roots itself in the positive rights of women to chose their reproductive destiny. This is a rear-guard action in light of the conservative direction of the court system. Unfortunately, it has become rooted in American jurisprudence that citizens only have those rights which a court is willing to recognize. The court is stepping closer and closer to deciding that women don't really have the rights outlined in Roe v Wade. I think what most Pro-choice advocates really want is to protect the gains in all fields of human endeavor that women have earned in recent decades. Thus Pro-choice advocates should be focused on securing for women the kind of social and political rights that will be needed when the end of legalized abortion finally comes. Perhaps they fear that doing so will signal that they have given up on the Roe battle-line. But I fear that they are going to lose that fight regardless of their commitment to Roe, simply because Roe is wrong and is bad law. When that day comes, and it will, what rights and protections will women have to compensate for the loss of this important, but morally problematic, reproductive technology?

The day Roe is overturned, the fight will revert to where it should have always stayed: the States and the political process. One size does not always fit all, and perhaps one abortion policy cannot fit all of a America. Many different solutions and many different compromises will bloom across the country. In the political tumult solutions will be created that everyone can finally live with. The loss of the right to abortion on demand as a Constitutional right will create the sort of compromise solutions involving support for the woman and the new child which I outlined earlier. The give and take of the political process is vastly preferable to the dogmatic, uncompromising, and unrealistic positions of the two camps now.

Abortion is death. It is also a key reproductive control technology without which women today would be much worse off. Both abortion opponents and women's rights proponents must realize that society will not be able to dispose of this horrible tool until women are protected from the major setback to their freedom and economic status outlawing abortion would cause. Only when political compromises that protect women from the costs of unwanted pregnancy are in place can we fully and heartily acknowledge with one voice that abortion is murder. Then the mass murder of our children can finally stop.

The Gun Posse Rides (Over a Cliff) Again

Arizona state lawmakers are looking at requiring government premises to allow citizens to carry weapons on the premises unless they provide storage facilities in which to secure arms within 200 feet of the entrance. Once again, reasonable gun policy is falling victim to knee jerk extremist positions on both sides that have less to do with the real interests of citizens to bear arms, and making good public policy, than with demonstrating ideological conformity and grandstanding, especially by those on the right. Recently, Jeff Smith of the Citizen and my State Rep. Steve Farley squared off in print over this issue. While I find both their points of view rather unconvincing and simplistic, both contain a kernel of valid concerns. The problem is that the way in which the Legislature is approaching this issue is frighteningly shallow, even if their underlying point about public values and civil rights is valid.

As a liberal Democrat with a CCW license and a gun, I have a foot in each camp on this issue. I think that Farley and the Democrats' concerns are well-intentioned, but as a practical matter, the examples Farley uses to illustrate that concern are profoundly jejune. He worries about misuse of these storage facilities to conceal evidence used in crimes or to facilitate illegal weapons sales. The same criticisms could be leveled at any anonymous public lockers, such as the ones are bus stations, airports, and even the prisons. Shall we ban those too because of their ability to facilitate illegal transfers and to conceal evidence?

The simple fact is that there is a big disconnect in public values when the state licenses a person to carry a weapon responsibly and then denies them the ability to carry it on state property. An arrangement such as these lockers that accommodates the rights of gun owners while addressing the safety and peace of mind of public employees and other citizens seems like a fair compromise to me.

That said, there are concerns about the current version of the bill that need to be addressed. The main reason so many local governments oppose such a bill is not safety, but cost. The price of installing such facilities at all public buildings could be prohibitive. The cost and who bears it should be carefully assessed, but is not even addressed in SB1251. Perhaps the facilities should not be free to users, but self-supporting. Perhaps mandating such installation should not be yet another unfunded mandate by the state government. If the state legislature feels so strongly about gun rights, they should pony up the money to help local governments to respect those rights.

There are problems with the anonymity of the system, too. The idea that you needn't show any ID to carry a weapon into a government building is obviously problematic, and is both the central concern of law enforcement and the ideological hobbyhorse of the Right concerning this bill. You do not need permit to carry a weapon openly in Arizona, but I do not find it outrageous, and I submit that the vast majority of Arizonans would not find it outrageous, that a person wishing to carry a weapon into a government facility should be be required to identify themselves as a guarantee of their responsible behavior. As for those carrying concealed, they should have to identify themselves as a CCW holder, and show their permit and ID. Peaceful, law abiding citizens interested only in defending themselves and others should have no problems with such minimal conditions.

Finally, there are times and places where weapons are simply never appropriate except for pre-cleared individuals: courts, CPS, prisons, etc., can and should be designated special security zones where no outside weapons are allowed. The exclusion of such facilities from the general rule should be supported by specific and well-documented security concerns. These exceptions should be narrowly tailored to suit a compelling need for security due to specific concerns and past history, documented in legislative findings which are the result of a careful process of hearings and deliberation, not some conclusory, blanket jumble of potentially sensitive locations based on loose "what if" scenarios supported only by legislative findings that are not backed by real-world testimony.

It seems to me that the real issues of public safety and individual rights are ill served when the GOP majority fails to enter into dialog with the Democratic majority to craft compromises that reflect the real concerns on both sides of this, and many other, issues. Creating a give and take that improves public policy is the purpose of the deliberative process and the role of an opposition. But the Arizona GOP too often (with notable exceptions, such as Senate President Bee's budget process) demonstrates hostility to the whole idea of deliberation and collaboration across the aisle. The result is the sort of hollow grandstanding disguised as law that we see in this bill. SB121 is less public policy than chest-thumping for the benefit of the GOP's hard-right base, and for that reason alone it should be defeated or vetoed in its current form. Given the GOP's divisive intent, one can hardly blame Democrats from coming back with uncompromising and fear-based objections. The GOP's tactics do not encourage engagement and compromise to create thoughtful policy, and that only hurts people like me who are concerned about civil rights, including the right to bear arms, by hollowing out the debate, leaving nothing but a reverberating echo-chamber of uncompromising ideological nonsense. To my mind, this partisan dynamic undermining the public's business is the best reason to turf the Arizona GOP out of the majority in our state legislature.