Blog For Arizona

Sound and fury

by David Safier

This is a bit late, but I just saw this on Kenny Jacobs' new blog, a Pithy Diarist: a Youtube video from the crazy-base 9/12 event in D.C.. One guy walks through the crowd with a large Public Option Now sign, and . . . Let the Boos Begin!

It's the same all the way through. No need to watch the whole thing.

By the way, a more complete version of the Shakespeare quote I used for the headline is strangely appropriate: "It is a tale/Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,/Signifying nothing."

AZ BlueMeanie analyzes Jefferson's "Tree of Liberty" quote

by David Safier

In a long, historically based and rather brilliant comment on my I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to think anymore post, AZ BlueMeanie looks into the meanings and ramifications of the Tree of Liberty quote conservatives, along with one of their own, Timothy McVeigh, so dearly love.

If you're of a scholarly bent, read his entire comment. If not, here's the Cliff Notes version that doesn't do it justice.

Jefferson didn't like Shays Rebellion in the 1780s. He thought the rebels were ignorant and misinformed, though patriotic. What the hell, he said, let them rebel. It's probably good for a government to get a wake-up call once in awhile. We'll end up killing some of them, and the others we'll set straight, then pardon for their wrongheadedness.

If we translate that to today, Jefferson might say about today's "Take up arms!" conservatives, Yeah, let those idiotic conservatives rise up and take arms. After all, they're doing it for patriotic reasons, even if they are idiots. And if some of them and some of us get killed, well, that's the way it goes. It's probably the only way we can knock the fanatical wrongheadedness out of their heads and make them realize how wrong they are.

One of the results of Shay's rebellion, by the way, was a stronger federal government. Oops!

A while after he wrote the Tree of Liberty letter, Jefferson, while helping to write the Constitution, changed his mind. He thought a carefully formed republican democracy could make armed rebellion unnecessary.

Here's a Jefferson quotation from that later period. The Tree of Liberty quoters might want to take a look at this to see that Jefferson, like most brilliant and complex thinkers, can't have his entire philosophy reduced to single sentence.

"Happy for us, that when we find our constitutions defective and insufficient to secure the happiness of our people, we can assemble with all the coolness of philosophers and set it to rights, while every other nation on earth must have recourse to arms to amend or to restore their constitutions."

The more thoughtful and curious among you, go read the Meanie's comment. He writes like a scholar. I write like a high school teacher.

Mobs and mob psychology

by David Safier
At Giffords' Tuesday town hall Tuesday night, one of the questioners said he was angry that people like him were being referred to as a mob. His words were greeting by loud cheers from the mob.

Maybe he was confused. "The Mob," meaning an organized crime group, is a carefully structured organization of people who have a clear, focused agenda. That's not what these crowds who pack town halls are about. They're closer to the primary dictionary definition: "a large or disorderly crowd; especially: one bent on riotous or destructive action."

Wednesday I talked with someone who was at the town hall. She said as she sat there, she feared violence would break out. I was sitting in the midst of a group of shouters, and I honestly never felt  it was a dangerous group. They were attending a party, an entertainment, and they were having a great time. They loved it.

I tried to draw an analogy. Is this like a group of fanatical supporters at a sporting event? No, it wasn't like anything I've ever seen in the U.S. Maybe the soccer hooligan crowds in England and elsewhere are close, I don't know, but it didn't feel to me like any sports crowd I was familiar with.

The closest I could come was the audience at a wrestling match. "The Ayatollah" comes strutting into the ring, and the audience boos the bad guy. The more he talks, the more they boo. Then the good guy walks in, and they cheer wildly. The boos and cheers continue through the match and through the evening.

The shouters at the Town Hall had come to an event where you cheer the good guy (They went nuts with joy when Dr. Carmona simply mentioned the name George Bush in passing), and boo the bad guy (they drowned out Carmona a few minutes later when he said there would not be a "single payer plan," simply because he uttered the phrase "single payer.") They were reacting on cue to words and phrases, and enjoying themselves immensely.

But then I thought, isn't that what it means to be a mob that could potentially become a violent mob?

A wrestling match turns the participants into a harmless mob of people who participate in a few hours of theater, then go home tired and happy. And this town hall turned them into a more politically focused mob, but again, they meant no physical harm. I doubt if there was so much as a shoving match before, during or after the event.

But isn't this the kind of group that can turn into a lynch mob in the hands or the right leader, or a mob sent storming down a street, breaking windows and upending cars? Can't a mob enjoying the vocal expression of its rage turn into a mob inflamed to violence and destruction?

So here are my two minds. Those people whose boos drowned out other's ideas weren't dangerous Tuesday night. No one had reason to fear for their immediate personal safety. But this movement has the potential of growing into a very angry, very dangerous force in this country. If they keep evolving in a straight line, they can become a nationwide mob which presents a clear and present danger.

Shameless self promotion

by David Safier
I'm linking to a column I wrote in this week's Explorer, not because I'm especially proud of it -- I tried to say too much in the space allotted, so it's a bit clunky (I love the "Don't fence me in" ethos of blog space!) -- but because it lays out my sense about where the tea partiers and public forum shouters (often the same people) are coming from.

We had a lively debate about this question in the comments section of my post, Health care rope-a-dope? Nick Dranias of the Goldwater Institute chimed in, and the fun began. So consider my column a continuation of that discussion. I'm not vain enough to quote myself in this post -- that would be a bit like a very bizarre scene in the film, Being John Malkovich -- so you'll have to follow the link if you want to read it.

Tea Partiers, embrace your extremism!

by David Safier
A funny thing happened in the lead up to Friday's demonstrations in front of Giffords' office. The Pima Democratic Party labeled the Tea Party movement "extremist," and the Tea Partiers freaked.

The Pima Dems received more than a dozen emails and I don't know how many phone calls which basically said, "How dare you call us extremists!"

I thought that's how the Tea Party movement referred itself at its inception. At their early rallies, speakers got cheers calling themselves and their followers extremists.  They got more cheers when they called for revolution and secession. And when they said Obama isn't our legitimate President, they brought down the house.

The movement takes its name from the Boston Tea Party. That was a group of extremists who destroyed private property as a form of protest. Their actions were among the early rumblings of the American Revolution, a violent rebellion whose purpose was to overthrow of an oppressive government.

Do you think the original Boston Tea Partiers would have bristled at being called extremists?

The parallel between the two movements is false and dangerous. To say today's U.S. government is the equivalent of English rule of the colonies and this six month old Tea Party movement is made up of Paines, Franklins, Jeffersons, Washingtons and their followers, indicates the Tea Party movement has delusions of grandeur -- with an emphasis on "delusions." And to imply that the only way to get rid of the Democratic administration is through violent aggression is unpatriotic and small-d undemocratic at best, and treasonous at worst.

Nonetheless, the Tea Baggers chose their name and have embraced it. They  should wear it proudly, along with its extremist associations. This attempt to remake themselves as a thoughtful, moderate group is hypocritical.

Why deny who you are? Your demonstrations should include signs saying, "Extremist and Proud of It!" When the Pima Dems label you an "extremist organization," you should reply, "Thank you."

Coming to a theater near you

by David Safier
And while we're on the subject of Mark Sanford (see post below), here's a preview of the upcoming theatrical release, Hiking the Appalachian Trail.

Occasionally, Even a Blind Hog Can Find an Acorn

by Jeff Latas
Recently, Russell Pearce did introduce some legislation that will affect the public good and benefit those in need. His legislation on the Military Family Relief Fund is sound, logical, and solves problems encountered by grieving military family members financially struggling after extremely traumatic events that would devastate anyone’s life.

Ironically, the legislation was so good that the Arizona Democratic Veterans' Caucus held a press conference calling on the Arizona legislature to pass SB 1176, a bill that will deliver much needed assistance to Arizona's military families who suffer from hardships presented when a loved one is injured or killed while serving our country. There is still room for improvement. The bill only addresses those who died in a theater of combat. I have voiced my recommendations to make this legislation less exclusive by including those who sustained injures in combat but died outside the combat zones.

The press conference, held yesterday, was very successful, with three network TV stations, two newspapers, and one radio station covered the event. Special thanks goes out to Sen. Manny Alverez and Rep. Patricia Fleming of District 25, Rep. Chris Dechene, USMC veteran, of District 2, and Rep. Daniel Patterson of District 29. Also, two notable veterans from the Arizona Democratic Veterans Caucus deserve credit for their part in recognizing the benefits of good legislation over partisan quarrelling. Matt Capalby and Ruben Gallego did a good job speaking and representing the Caucus in support of SB1176.

Another example of good legislation that was severally disparaged by Democrats at a federal level was a bill introduced by Senator McCain.  When Senator Jim Webb introduced the New GI Bill, McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham instead introduced a competing bill that sought to improve current Montgomery G.I. Bill benefits. The battle came down to which was better instead of seeing the merits which both would have. Democrats supported Webb’s bill, also introduced by Congressman Harry Mitchell, and blasted the McCain/Graham bill. However, there was huge benefit to many in improving the Montgomery bill. One of the benefits was that the Montgomery Bill benefited those who don’t qualify for the New GI Bill. There was no reason why both the New GI Bill, introduced by Webb/Mitchell (a very good bill that I fully supported), and the needed changes to the Montgomery Bill, introduced by McCain and Graham, couldn’t have happened. Why not both?

There is yet another example of showing our true values by supporting legislation introduced by someone we all know here at BFA. Those who know me know I love my dogs. I have three pit bulls that were rescued from certain death. Two were pulled from the dungeon-like conditions seen at the Pima Animal Control facility. Every year nearly 20,000 dogs and cats are put to death in Pima County at a cost of around $250 per animal ($5 million). That’s some big money we Pima citizens fork out to support status quo killing. Many communities have adopted “no-kill” policies that have had major reductions in costs to taxpayers and in saving lives. Where am I going with this? Senator Al Melvin introduced a bill that would make Arizona a no-kill state, SB1446. Although not perfect, it’s a step in the progressive direction and the first in the nation. The bill benefits both the taxpayers and the animals. My wife, Oro Valley Councilmember Salette Latas, has met with Sen. Melvin to suggest amendments that would strengthen the legislation.

We need to be careful not to demonize good legislation based on who introduced it. I don’t support Melvin, Pearce, or McCain based on their total record, but occasionally they do have progressive moments. So please, let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Dr. George Tiller, human being

by David Safier
As the media has carried the story about the murder of Dr. George Tiller, it has labeled Tiller either as Abortion Doctor or "one of the nation's few late-term-abortion providers." It's typical of today's media to use shorthand to make the story clear and simple, but it's dehumanizing not to tell more of the man's history and career as a doctor. I guess the "liberal media" is afraid to alienate the anti-abortion crowd by humanizing Tiller.

Daily Kos has an affecting post by a woman who tells the story of Dr. George Tiller's quick and decisive thinking that may have saved her mother's life when he spotted her breast cancer. Later, he intervened just before her mother had a heart attack, and at another time gave the writer prenatal care free of charge.

A post on the Washington Monthly blog has stories about late term abortions, one performed by Dr. Tiller, which take the procedure out of the horror movie scenario abortion opponents create and into the realm of helping families make very painful decisions and saving the life of the mother.

The media usually goes out if its way to create a sympathetic portrait of murder victims. To its shame, it hasn't given Dr. Tiller that kind of caring treatment, which he deserves.

Democrats' Citizenship Will Be Tested - oh, and Mike Returns

by Michael Bryan

The Obama Administration will test Democrats' in ways that being the loyal opposition during the lost Bush years never could.

We were righteous. We were powerless. We were vindicated. We were innocent. Now, with Obama in the Oval and Democrats in utter control of Congress, we are none of those things. Suddenly, the Democratic Party and its elected officials can shape the world; the question now arises, what happens when what is created is not to our liking?

We knew what to do when the detested Bush and his party of greed and hypocrisy were in charge: march, organize, shout, condemn, etc. But what shall Democrats do when they disagree whole-heartedly with what the Democratic caucus and President Obama are up to?

The temptation is to become apologists for their actions. Research has shown clearly that partisans, confronted with facts that demonstrate hypocrisy by one of their own, will rationalize it away - smooth it over mentally to make it more comfortable. It is much harder to remain open-minded, cleave to your values, and condemn those actions.

Rationalizing away uncomfortable facts is what partisans and politicians do. Making compromises, seeing the other side, achieving what seems possible: this is the role of politicians.

Following your conscience, articulating marginalized (i.e., rationalized away) views, and demanding what you believe is right - even if what is right seems impossible: this is the role of a citizen. Many of us who believed naively that everything would be fine once Democrats were in charge are now going to have our ability to put our citizenship ahead of our partisanship severely tested.

AfPak, detainees, torture prosecutions, Abu photos, Congressional investigations, mountaintop removal, etc.: there is fault out there to find.

There are many very difficult problems that have been left for our creaky and balky political system to deal with. And like it or not, fair or not, Democrats have been left with the responsibility and duty to try to address these many complex and intractable problems. I believe that, within the constraints of their roles, our representatives in Congress and our President will attempt in good faith to resolve these many problems - and frequently they will get it dead wrong. What to do?

I believe that those of who have the interest and inclination to follow public affairs should react as citizens, not just as partisans. We should not rationalize and defend. We should oppose, and explain why.

I write this defense of citizenship because, obviously, I find myself frequently in disagreement with the decisions taken by the elected representatives of my party, including my President. That doesn't mean I don't support my party, or that I wish others to take power instead; it means that as a citizen, I feel it my duty to explain why I think they are wrong, and not to rationalize away my discomfort at finding myself at odds with my faction.

With this ideal of citizenship foremost on my mind, I once again take up my pen. Some of you might have noticed that I have written infrequently on this blog over the past several months. The reason is that I discovered, in the rudest, most abrupt fashion, that I have a heart condition. I needed all my energy to heal, return to normal life, and adjust to managing the problem. Even now, daily life frequently takes everything I have, leaving nothing for this forum. But I hope that as I recover and gain momentum, I will more frequently be a contributor to this forum, rather than mainly an enthusiastic and grateful reader.

David Safier and Arizona Blue Meanie, along with the occasional contributions of a few others, have exceeded my wildest expectations. They have more than filled in, they have transformed and enriched this blog. My most heart-felt thanks to them. Readership is higher than it has ever been while not in the thick of an election cycle. If fact, I imagine that, to many readers, they are the blog - not I. And that's wonderful.

It is perhaps the most satisfying thing about any endeavor to see it grow beyond you. This blog is no longer just about me; it is a forum that has found purpose beyond merely serving as a conduit for my own opinions. I welcome and embrace that. Of course, my opinion will still appear here, but I hope that so will those of others who are deeply concerned about public policy and have a desire to reach out to Arizona progressive community.

Goldwater Institute shows its libertarian side

by David Safier
G.I. usually doesn't come down on the same side of issues as I do. But as a faithfully skeptical reader of its daily emails, I keep abreast of its ideas and its doings, and I find we come down on the same side of two recent issues, one for different reasons, one for similar reasons.

Today, G.I.'s Nick Dranias stated why he thinks the guns-in-parking lots law is a bad idea. It's not because he's against guns in parking lots, but because he's against limiting private property rights.

Arizona House Bill 2474 would protect the right to carry, transport and store weapons on private property--effectively trumping the owner's property rights. Advocates of limited government should avoid creating a conflict between property rights and gun rights. Bills like this lead down a slippery slope. Forcing private property owners to abide behavior that we like provides the basis to force them to abide behavior we abhor.

Too bad G.I. can't appeal to the libertarian strain in enough R legislators to have them vote against the bill. NRA approval trumps just about everything else.

Our second agreement is G.I.'s belief that a tattoo studio should be allowed to open in a Tempe strip mall. The city council voted to revoke the parlor's permit because they thought it would lead to "neighborhood deterioration." A judge ruled in favor of the owners of the tattoo parlor,  Tom and Elizabeth Preston, and against Tempe.

"This ruling is a victory for the rule of law," declared [Clint] Bolick [of the Goldwater Institute]. "If the City can lawfully treat the Prestons this way, then every small business owner in Arizona is at risk of arbitrary government action."

This time we agree on allowing the Prestons to open their business, for the same reason.

Strange bedfellows and all that.

Imagine Munger as Governor

by David Safier
John Munger is playing coy about his gubernatorial aspirations. But there's got to be a reason he's working so hard to dump his old semi-hysterical, Republican-talking-points persona and recreate himself as a visionary.

Munger created an imaginearizona.com website (Full name across the top bar: Imagine Arizona - State of Arizona Public Policy - John Munger). It's a PAC, and Munger is Chairman. And today he has his second recent visionary op ed in the Star (he wrote another one awhile ago), this time about my favorite subject, education. His co-author is Lisa Graham Keegan, past Arizona Ed Supe, big promoter of charters and vouchers and McCain's education advisor in his presidential bid.

So what's Munger/Keegan's visionary educational idea? Here's a hint: the column should have a huge asterisk with a note at the bottom: See Matthew Ladner. It's all Ladner, all the time. You've read every one of the ideas here on BfA in Ladner's own words.

Note to Munger: The other John -- Lennon, that is -- may have cowritten songs with McCartney, but he never cribbed straight from Paul's playbook.

Check these ideas from Munger's column against the ideas you've seen Ladner express here.

• How much does Arizona spend per student? $9,707. Check.
• Who's got the best education for the least money? Florida. Check.
• Whose interference gets in the way of schools improving performance? Teachers' unions. Check. ("Imagine no more unions. It's easy if you try.")
• What do we need and how do we get it? We need great teachers, and we get them by paying them six figure salaries. Check and check.
• How do we give teachers high salaries without increasing school budgets? Increase class size. Check. ("Imagine crowded classrooms. It isn't hard to do.")

"You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
Munger for Governor -- c'mon, it'll be fun."

How easy was that, John? I could have written that op ed for you, it was so familiar. I almost expected you to address me by name and accuse me of clinging to my teddy bear, like Matthew does when I tell him his $9,500 figure is the exclusive province of G.I. and the politicians who love it. (Next on Oprah: G.I. and the politicians who love it. Let's find out if they can break the cycle of dependency.)

Another note to Munger: While Ladner's ideas, laid out in his New Millenium Schools pamphlet, make sense as a small scale experiment at a charter school, it's a ludicrous concept on a statewide scale, and if you're looking at a run for governor, you need to think large scale. But keep pushing the idea, John, and be sure to remind voters you want to crowd more students in classrooms so you can pay the teachers more. Here's an idea. Call them Rock Star Teachers. Kinda like Jack Black in "School of Rock." That's sure to win the voters over.

Dr. Word says: "Banana Republican" is more like it.

by David Safier
The Republicans are trying on pejorative term number three hundred seventy seven (or something. I've lost count.) to try and slow Obama's momentum. They're saying he's running the U.S. like a Banana Republic because the government might investigate Bush's use of torture.

It began with TV and radio screamers like Hannity, Beck and others. Then it moved to Congress. Here's Arizona's favorite senator:

McCain: "In Banana Republics they prosecute people for actions they didn't agree with under previous administrations."

And McCain's colleague, Senator Kit Bond (R-Mo):

Bond: "This whole thing about punishing people in past administrations reminds me more of a Banana Republic than the United States of America. We don't criminally prosecute people we disagree with when we change office. There are lots of questions that could have been asked of the Clinton administration failing to recognize the war on terror. They did not. The Bush administration went forward, and that's the way our country should. The President said he was going to be forward looking and now he has opened up the stab in the back."

The basic idea they're trying to push is that "Banana Republic" stands for those dictators south of the border we hate so much, like that Castro guy in Cuba and that Chavez guy in Venezuela. You know, the communists and the socialists who are kinda scary and kinda laughable at the same time. And kinda like Mexicans too, only from countries we think are really bad. It never hurts to throw in little racist subtext for the Lou Dobbs crowd.

But that's not where the term comes from. Banana Republics are corrupt, repressive right wing dictatorships that work with huge foreign corporations, originally fruit companies that exported bananas. The leaders enrich their cronies and the foreign corporations while they beggar the rest of the populace. The U.S. usually got along pretty well with these guys, since we counted on them making life easy for our corporate interests.

Say what you will about Cuba and Venezuela, they're not Banana Republics.

So which party in this country favors corporate interests over those of working people, keeping corporate taxes low while opposing minimum wage laws and labor unions? Yeah, I thought so, the "not Obama" party that was in power 100 days ago.

Part of me almost feels sorry for how lame the Republicans are right now and how desperately they're searching for a negative label to hang on Obama. But most of me watches warily. Because I know if one of these labels sticks, the media and most of the populace with forget all the early missteps and latch onto it while every Republican pol repeats it dozens of times daily. Though these guys have been laughable for the past 100 days, unfortunately, they're nothing to laugh at.

Fashion Note: Though the use of Banana Republic isn't laugh-out-loud funny like teabagging, it shows how far these people have fallen since the days when their language was perfectly tailored to sway opinion. Most of the country associates Banana Republic with a store in malls that sells lots of earth tone khakis and other sensibly fashionable clothing. Something tells me the people who created this latest metaphor don't spend much time hanging around at the mall.

This troubles me even more

by David Safier
This is one of those times I wish I could say I'm being overly fearful. You know us liberals, always worried about the violent convergence of extreme right wing politics and the gun culture. But some of the back story behind the killing of three Pittsburgh police officers by 23 year old Richard Poplawski really scares me.

Yesterday, before I had heard of this latest horrific incident of random violence, I wrote This troubles me, referencing a column by Charles Blow where he mentions the increase in legal gun purchases since Obama's election and my concern this could be a forerunner of an increase of rage-related gun violence, not to mention acts of planned terrorism. "We sometimes forget that not all dangerous men are trained by Al Qaeda," Blow wrote.

And the right wing blow hards, both in the media and the halls of Congress, are doing everything they can to stoke the fires of rage and fear, which means unstable people who are prone to violence are being given a provided with a target.

You never know what triggers one of these killing sprees. Someone already has to be right at the edge. But in this case, part of the trigger might have been Poplawski's fears that guns would be banned, according to AP:

Police Chief Nate Harper said the motive for the shooting isn't clear, but friends said the gunman recently had been upset about losing his job and feared the Obama administration was poised to ban guns.

Further on in the article, Poplawski's best friend, Edward Perkovic, said this:

Poplawski had feared "the Obama gun ban that's on the way" and "didn't like our rights being infringed upon," said Edward Perkovic, his best friend.

Note Perkovic' phrasing: "the Obama gun ban that's on the way." It's Obama's gun ban, and it's not a some vague possibility. It's "on the way."

Elsewhere, Perkovic had this to say about his friend:

"I've known this kid my entire life and he was a good kid. He never had bad intentions. He never spoke about harming anybody," said Edward Perkovic, a lifelong friend who had known Mr. Poplawski since the two paired up at a daycare.

Who is Edward Perkovic? Here's what the Troll Report says it found on Perkovic's MySpace page (I haven't checked to confirm this):

DOCUMENTS I RECCOMEND YOU READ BY GOOGLE: "Civil War II" by Tom Chittum "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" "The Turner Diaries" by Dr. William Pierce "Jewish Supremacy" by Dr. David Duke It Has Even Been Documented In The Communist Manifesto: "“We must realize that our party’s most powerful weapon is racial tension. "By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by the whites, we can mold them to the program of the Communist Party. "In America we will aim for subtle victory. While inflaming the Negro minority against the whites, we will endeavour to instill in the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the Negros. "We will aid the Negros to rise to prominence in every walk of life, in the professions, and in the world of sports and entertainment

One crazy guys kills some policemen. He's afraid Obama wants to rip his gun out of his hands. His best friend's reading list is a rogue's gallery of anti-semitic and racist literature. This doesn't add up to clear cause and effect. But it scares the hell out of me.

I still hope I'm being overly fearful and this is an isolated incident where it was the shooter's sickness and despair, not far right wing fear-and-violence mongering, that was to blame. But I fear we're going to see more politically inspired violence in the days ahead.

Wall Street, schools and merit pay

by David Safier

A Seattle Times columnist has an interesting thought piece on teacher merit pay, comparing it to bonuses paid to Wall Street execs. If pay for performance is such a good idea, how did Wall Street's bonus babies get us into such a mess?

It's a good question, and part of a larger debate raging in education over the topic of privatization.

Should education be privatized by using government money as vouchers to pay for private schools? These days, when we're seeing the results of private sector abuse, it's strange to suggest we should adopt that model for publicly funded schooling -- giving money to private, minimally regulated schools and expecting them to act in the public interest.

Should public schools adopt the private enterprise model of rewarding teachers for "performance"?

For Wall Street bankers, the gauge was profits or stock prices. For classroom teachers, it's usually student test scores. Those who get higher profits or test scores earn more cash. Those who don't are left behind, and eventually weeded out.

Simple, efficient, Darwinian.

Except on Wall Street it was a disaster.

[snip]

I realize teacher merit pay would be different — nobody would get rich, for starters. But the idea is similar. It's to tie some pay not to experience or skills but to a short-term result — how students do on yearly tests.

Traders, banks and loan officers obsessed over immediate profits rather than the long term effects of their actions. Would teachers and administrators obsess over test scores (even more than they do now) at the expense of the non-testable aspects of the entire educational curriculum, and the non-testable aspects of being human?

The idea of merit pay is a minefield filled with hidden dangers and unintended consequences. It needs to be approached with utmost caution.

House and Senate pass budget bill

by David Safier

The Arizona Guardian reports that the House and Senate passed the Republican budget bill and sent it to Brewer early Saturday morning.

Republicans wrangled over some items on the budget but, so far as I can tell, left the education cuts intact. Sen. Jack Harper pushed to have 25% of the K-12 cuts come from administration, but settled for language saying the cuts would come from administration where possible. Brewer restored some health and welfare programs,and the Science Foundation's 21st Century Fund was cut.

No word on what Brewer will do, but since she only suggested a few changes, I'm guessing she'll sign.

Post-Napolitano Arizona is open for business.

Obama y Biden - Que Viva "Change We Can Believe In!"

by John Adams

Dateline Denver, the 2008 Democratic National Convention...staging ground for victory for the American people in November.

Why Joe Biden?

Let's ask the neocon icon, Mr. William Kristol, his thoughts on the question:  "There's lots to like about Barack's choice of Senator Joe Biden as his running mate: Biden's bowling score, honed by years of practice...now that will help the ticket."

OK, I admit I didn't ask the unctuous, reptilian Kristol to answer the question...rather I overheard the above flippant BS as Bill K spoke to one of his slobbering minions in the lobby here at the Hyatt Regency Tech Center...I like this hotel lots, but why couldn't they book better peeps than Fox News to share OUR delegation's convention residence?

But that begs the question, why is Joe Biden such a good choice as Barack's running mate?

1) Biden is a fighter.  After all, we're in for the political struggle of our lives over the next couple of months, and Biden is proven in battle.  Great message for all of us on the campaign...it's time to take the offensive.  McCain's earned whatever we throw at him...Biden's already firing fastballs.  This convention is all about marshaling our resources to take on McCain and the Republicans, and Biden's strong, sharp attacking style is just what we need.

2) Biden is grounded.  He knows personal adversity, he knows public adversity, and like Barack, he understands what it's like to have to work hard to make it in America.  He wasn't born rich, he's not now, and he has no problem answering questions like how many homes he has.

3) Biden knows the stakes for this election: War and Peace.  Wannabe Emperor McCain doesn't understand how unsafe the Iraq War has made America; in fact, he's spoiling for a new war with Iran.  On the other hand, like Barack, Biden knows that the issue of war and peace is the most important question facing any President, and he's determined to keep us safe and at peace.  Like Barack, he has the courage to oppose the war-mongers who continue wasting American blood and treasure in Iraq...and he has the courage to oppose the twisted ideologues who want to expand the conflict to Iran.  Biden knows the world, he knows the value of diplomacy, he knows the risks of war, and he knows the importance of peace not only to restoring America's place in the world, but to healing our suffering economy.  In the Senate, Biden's proven himself to be an insightful expert in foreign policy and issues of national security.  He'll bring these talents to the campaign, and to the Office of Vice President. 

4) Biden's ready to lead now...dedicated to his role as Barack's Number 2.  Biden is a strong, forward-looking Vice Presidential candidate who's dedicated to electing Barack Obama this fall, and to serving the Constitution as Vice President, rather than as some sort of co-President.  If the situation ever arose, Biden will be ready to step up to the White House, but he respects and is dedicated to Barack Obama as the leader of our movement and as our next President.

5) Biden's selection is well-timed.  Of course, we always expected to know the selection prior to the convention kickoff, and thank God for that.  Next week in Denver is about moving forward, about winning the election, and restoring our country to the American people.  Biden's selection puts to rest one of the most often-cited issues for many who've had trouble putting the primary season behind them...we need to move on, and having a strong, talented running mate helps us do that. 

After the night of the past eight years, it will be wonderful to have a Vice President who serves the Constitution and is dedicated to preserving American national security.

Barack Obama leads a movement that will bring change to our deserving people -- now he's selected an excellent Vice Presidential nominee to accelerate our victory in November.

And as for our hotel-mates at Fox...I expect I'll hear more lame drivel over the next few days from Bill Kristol, Bill O, or one of the other Fox News idiots...but perhaps I should spare you more of that...

The Convention starts officially on Monday, and with the good news of Senator Joe Biden's selection to complete our White House ticket, we in the Arizona Delegation are ready to help ensure Hope becomes Fulfillment this November.

Keeping Faith With the American People: Ending the War in Iraq

by John Adams

Critical to Democratic prospects in November, as well as to our country’s future, is keeping the commitment to the American people to end the war in Iraq. Yet there exist so-called “democratic realists” (some of whom are also Democrats, cousins of the “neoconservatives”…you know, those guys who wanted to “liberate” Iraq and “democratize” the broader Middle East) who consider Iraq their base for future mischief in the region, continue to enjoy billions of dollars in contractual profits, and want to occupy Iraq indefinitely. Although Barack Obama has always forthrightly opposed invading and occupying Iraq, we must not allow the “realists” to undercut his determination to end the war.  He will keep the promise to the American people, but we need to have Barack's back.

And we who have a voice here at home, in this critical election, need to bring our brave troops home safely and now.  We need to honor their sacrifices. 

We need to have our troops' backs.

Tacking to the center on Iraq is analogous to scuttling the ship.

Fortunately, the recently completed draft Democratic Party Platform’s plank on Iraq reflects Obama’s determination to end the war rather than the so-called realists’ – and John McCain’s -- determination to remain. In the paragraph entitiled “Ending the War in Iraq," the Platform calls for:

• “bring(ing) the Iraq war to a responsible end.”
• “re-center(ing) American foreign policy by responsibly redeploying our combat forces from Iraq and refocusing them on urgent missions.”
• “giv(ing) our military a new mission: ending this war and giving Iraq back to its people.”
• “remov(ing) our combat brigades at the pace of one to two per month and expect(ing) to complete redeployment within 16 months.”
• “keep(ing) a residual force in Iraq to perform specific missions: targeting terrorists; protecting our embassy and civil personnel; and advising and supporting Iraq’s Security Forces, provided the Iraqis make political progress.”
• "mak(ing) clear that we seek no permanent bases in Iraq."

Of course, there’s much more in the Platform…and more that we all need to focus upon, both analytically and with energetic political advocacy.  But this represents a solid plank on the war in Iraq.

And we must remember that no matter how sweet the Platform, only the ultimate policy results count.

We invaded and continue to occupy Iraq based on false pretenses. We took our eyes off Al Qaeda, and instead attacked a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 (have we forgotten the Iraq WMD sham?)

Those who wanted to invade Iraq in the first place have not lost their dream of having American troops based in Iraq -- accompainied by multi-billion dollar sweet deal contracts.

How many brave American lives must be lost in a war which makes America less safe?

How many more billions must be wasted in Iraq while our own economy suffers?

How many more young lives will be shattered fighting a war that should never have been fought?

If we want to make our country more prosperous and the world safer, we must:

• Bolster our Party’s stated determination to end the war in Iraq.
• Elect Barack Obama in November, giving him a clear mandate to end the war.
• Following the election, guard against the machinations of the so-called foreign policy and national security realists as they do whatever they can to maintain our occupation of Iraq indefinitely.

Nothing is more important to American security and prosperity than ending the nightmarish misadventure in Iraq.

Arizona Week in Review

Some of you might have noticed that my posting has been rather slow of late. I hope that some of my fellow bloggers have been able to keep you informed and entertained, but I realize that Arizona political news and opinion has been rather too thin on the ground around here.

When I think about all the great stories in Arizona politics that deserve coverage and/or comment, I shrivel at the thought of all the posts that need to be written in so little time. And I end up not writing them.

So I'm going to take some of the pressure off by not demanding of myself that I write about everything in a separate post, but instead, throw everything that's been buzzing in my bonnet into a single weekly bout of blogorrhea. Sounds delightful, no? Well, then, here we go.

Bee Flees the Hive:

Perhaps the most fun of late is the on-going saga of how Bee is throwing his affiliation with the GOP under the bus: he tried not be photographed with Bush (though everyone knows he's using Bush to fund-raise, so, really, why bother? I guess the same reason we're not allowed to see pictures of dead American troops... some realities are just too harsh for mere citizens).

Furthering the story line is Bee's ads. Two of them so far and neither contains the words "GOP" or "Republican," instead using the line "Independence for a Change." Timmy, that seems rather derivative of and responsive to Giffords' tag "Because Change Can't Wait." Wow, with even conservatives wanting to run as change agents, and eshewing their party's label, it can't be more clear how utterly the GOP has fucked up.

Bee Stings Busy-Bodies:

Bee nixed the idea of an independent bi-partisan look into rule violations by Sen. Jack Harper to stop debate in the Arizona Senate so that the Gay Marriage Referendum could be considered. Standing in the breach to protect members of his caucus from accountability for dir1ty tricks isn't exactly the sort of co-operative, bi-partisan consensus building image that Bee is trying to sell to voters. Looks a lot more like "my party right or wrong" to me.

Endorse This:

It really grates on me to see elected officials taking sides in party primaries. The most irritating are Congressional primaries where Representatives from other districts endorse in a contested primary. Ann Kirkpatrick announced an endorsement from Harry Mitchell, adding to those she's already gotten from Governor Napolitano and Gabby Giffords.

It would annoy my immensely to have these folks stepping in to tell me who should represent my district if I lived in CD 1. It would annoy me were I supporter of another primary candidate. And it strikes me as an overbearing use of political influence on the part of the endorsers to try to determine the outcome of party primaries. Party officials can't be partial in this manner, why should far more visible and influential party members, our officer-holders, be allowed to play this divisive game? It's merely vanity and ambition, and I condemn it.

DiSimone Hits the Road:

Following an arrest on domestic violence, State Representative Mark DiSimone resigned from his office. I keep asking myself, "If Mark were a Republican, would I expect him to resign because of an allegation of domestic violence?" Just an allegation and arrest aren't really enough, in my opinion. A conviction would certainly do the trick. However, if you are a Republican, even a conviction for something as sordid as a DUI apparently isn't enough for Republicans to demand your resignation.

Mark maintains he didn't hit anyone, so why did he resign? Probably he's thinking of the good the Party and that his constituents should have the most effective advocate possible. Just another contrast between the way Democrats and Republicans approach politics and personal responsibility; and another chance for GOPers to demonstrate their double standards - one for us, and one for them.

Buddy, Can You Spare a TIME?:

Jim Nintzel has helped clarify this issue immensely for me by making sure to ask all and sundry for their positions on the TIME initiaitive, which adds a 1 cent sales tax to the state rate to pay for infrastructure. Having heard some of the most informed Democrats in the state express opinions on this, I feel I finally have a position on the matter.

I read the initiative (PDF) a few months ago (which is more than most will do) and my immediate reaction was "Great! But why a sales tax?" In Arizona we already have a high sales tax rate and are overly dependent on this cyclical revenue sources, which is why we have state revenue booms and busts that we try to even out with an inadequately-sized rainy-day fund (thank the GOP for cutting the fund's size). So, making our infrastructural development even more dependent on such a cyclical source strikes me as bad planning, and the regressive nature of sales taxes makes it bad policy, in my opinion.

Of course, I recognize the political constraints that shaped the TIME, but I don't think supporting something because their isn't currently a better option is politically useful: better to work to create better options than moot the issue by putting into place something that while useful, if unfair and far less than optimal. That's why I'm an idealist and critic, and not a politician. I don't get paid to compromise.

Those Democrats who support TIME (and only RINOs support it, because, you know, it's a tax!) make the bold claim that if you oppose it for the reasons I've given, you have to propose where we're going to get billions for infrastructure. No I don't. That's bullshit.

How about this: Democrats take over the State Legislature and pass some indexed gas taxes, some reasonable property taxes and impact fee allowances, and get rid of a whole bunch of corporate welfare, and we use that money to fund our infrastructure? Why isn't that a good plan? It's certainly a better plan that continuing to put the cost of government and investments for our future on the backs of the poorest and middle-class Arizonans.

The TIME would probably accomplish some good by addressing Arizona's worst infrastructural deficits (which Republicans have allowed to accumulate with their mania against taxes) but only at the cost of making Arizona's financial situation far more inequitable, and locking that inequity into the system for another generation. Better to fight to take back the government and fund infrastructure equitably, than just give up and allow the GOP to screw another generation with their misguided and plutocratic ideology. Politics isn't just the art of the possible, at it's best, it's also the art of the improbable. TIME is well intentioned, but it accepts the merely probable by playing by a set of political rules and constraints that are anti-theatrical to progressive governance. I can't support that.

Obamazona?:

Could Arizona become a battleground state in the Presidential election? With some polling putting Obama within single digits to McBush in the state, with a rich vein of independents and undecideds remaining to court, it is not outside the realm of possibility. With so much money being available to Obama, a few million to go on the air in Arizona and potentially embarrass McBush seems like a bargain. We will almost certainly get a few field organizers on the ground in AZ; maybe we'll even get a few events on a candidate swing through the state. With lots of new registrations and the Obama camapign energizing low-efficacy voters throughout the primary season, it seems that the traditional presidential campaign map may be changing. The very strong popularity of Obama in the Hispanic community (66% Obama, 23% McBush, 11% Undecided) could be a factor in pushing several Southwestern states, including AZ, into the blue this season.

Poor Joe:

Pity poor Maricopa County SheriffJoe Arpiao. Beaten in pinata-effigy by protesters at a book signing, his head came off and with carried about a bit by Pima County Legal Defender Isabel Garcia (full disclosure: Isabel used to be my boss). The rightwing rant radio and usual bug-eating-crazy suspects, got a hold of that and had a field day: calling for Isabel's firing by the Pima County Board, bar discipline, actual beheading... whatev.

Isabel and her pals have a perfect right to peacefully protest any way they like. What stikes me is 1) the Right's hypocritcal attack on free speech, and 2) the Right's quick retreat into victimhood.

The Right loves free speech: they hide their worst hate-speech behind it constantly. But let a liberal step out of line and express a controversial view and suddenly they boycott, and contact your boss to try to get you fired. No consequence they can possibly try to inflict, including a good beating, is out of bounds when a liberal says something the right doesn't like. Remember the Dixie Chicks? The digital brownshirts are on patrol. Don't ever forget which side of the political spectrum is constantly attacking that bulwark of the First Amendment, the ACLU.

The one area where I think Isabel and her friends made a mistake was providing an opportunity for Joe and his ractist buddies and supporters to play the victim. Reading the right wing coverage, if you didn't know the story intimately, you might think that Isabel's young friends had taken a stick to Sheriff Joe's very own carcass. Isabel and her krewe didn't attack Joe, they hit a pinata. But in making this symbolic gesture, they allowed Joe and the racists who stand with him to play the victim. There is nothing the Right adores more than the opportunity to play the victim.

It's inherent in the conservative psyche that they are constantly under attack and withstanding seige by the forces of chaos and corruption, i.e. everyone else. They thrive on their embattlement. They are always the victim, relatiating against the aggressors in their own minds: never attacking or acting as the oppressor, but merely the downtrodden defending themselves against outrageous and unjustified attacks. Even the shock-jock who promoted this story heavily, Jon Justice, is now taking the posture of victim in defense of his jack-ass antics.

This is why it is always a mistake to play into the Right's favorite narrative. Give them the slightest pretext to cast themselves and victims and martyrs, and they will riff on that theme for all they are worth. In the end, Isabel's protest probably generated a lot more sympathy and solidarity among Joe's supporters than awareness of Joe's abuses of the community he's supposed to protect. As such, it may have stregthened Joe's political support rather than undermined it, contrary to the protest's intent.

A Meeting with our Future Commander-in-Chief

by John Adams

Last Wednesday, June 18, in Washington, I had the privilege of joining a group of thirty-seven retired generals and admirals in a meeting with Senator Barack Obama, to discuss national security issues. 

I entered the meeting with Hope, believing with all my heart that Barack Obama can bring the change our country needs, to restore our safety and prosperity.  I left the meeting with Fulfillment, knowing that this is a leader who is ready to be our Commander-in-Chief today.

A small but revealing digression...as our group waited for our meeting to start, greeting each other, including (for me) some whom I hadn't seen for years (previous assignments in the Middle East, the Balkans, the Pentagon), speaking of why we were together, suddenly we recognized -- literally in our midst -- the voice we've all come to know, that of Barack Obama.  The room hushed immediately.  Barack told us he was running about fifteen minutes late, and he wanted to let us know that he regretted the delay, but we'd get down to business soon.  He could have sent someone to tell us, of course, but that's not his style.  Instead, he told us himself. 

The mark of a leader who respects others...

As the outlines of the meeting have been reported in the press, I'll take the liberty of commenting on the atmospherics within the bounds of discretion, as the points of our discussion must remain "closed-door."

Senator Obama opened the meeting with a heartfelt thanks to all of us -- and to those who wear the uniform of the United States of America -- for our service.  He asked us not to hold back in the discussion on national security issues -- encouraging us always to do the right thing, to speak our minds with absolute candor.  His demeanor was calm, relaxed, purposeful, and completely businesslike. 

Throughout the meeting, he genuinely listened -- and responded appropriately to -- our concerns.  His tone of urgency and determination to address the serious issues facing our country inspired all of us to voice our concerns in the same spirit.  And Barack's encouragement -- to speak our minds honestly and directly -- found success.  No one held back. 

And though Senator Obama was clearly in charge of the meeting (setting the broad topics, responding thoughtfully and knowledgably to our observations), he listened to our group far longer than he spoke to us. 

The mark of a leader who values counsel...

Senator Barack Obama is both brilliant and wise.  Vitally important for a Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America, he knows how to lead, and how to call professionals to duty in service to our Constitution.  He knows the national security issues facing our country internationally -- and domestically.  He understands the process by which our national security strategy should be derived -- and he also understands how the process can go off the rails. 

Most important for Americans who trust in his leadership and wisdom, he is already tackling national security issues with both urgency and determination...as a Senator and as our Party's standard bearer now, but looking forward to the challenges he'll face in office.  Barack Obama leans forward.

The mark of a leader with his priorities straight...

We've all seen how masterfully Barack has run the most successful primary campaign in recent memory, harnessing the energy of tens of millions of Americans, a host of committted volunteers, as well as a skilled professional staff, to build a movement that overcame all the odds to win.  Now we can see he has hit the ground running in the general election campaign. 

Among other things, I took away from our meeting last Wednesday that Barack Obama feels a solemn duty to Americans to restore our national security after eight years of the Bush Administration's disregard for our safety and prosperity.  As Barack quotes Martin Luther King, this movement is about "the fierce urgency of now"...

The mark of a leader who serves the American people...

And you can believe -- on national security as on all the other urgent issues crying out for leadership and competence -- President Barack Obama will hit the ground running in January.

Fanning the Flames of Racism

by David Safier

First, this didn't happen in Arizona. Second, it's a single incident, so it's unfair to make it into something larger than that.

That being said, this AP item in the Kansas City Star deserves a wider audience:

Wife of founder of Ozarks Minutemen pleads guilty to fake rape claim

The wife of a founder of the Ozarks Minutemen has pleaded guilty to lying about being raped and shot by three Hispanic men.

Angela D. Wilburn, 44, appeared in Greene County Associate Circuit Court on Tuesday and pleaded guilty to making a false report, a class B misdemeanor. Wilburn is scheduled to be sentenced Nov. 3. She could face up to six months in prison and a $500 fine.

Wilburn is the wife of Brian Wilburn, who helped form the Ozarks Minutemen. She was charged with the crime in December, after calling 911 reporting someone had shot her.

Angela Wilburn told investigators that three Hispanic men broke into her mobile home and that one of the men sexually assaulted her in the hallway, then shot her in the knee with a handgun.

She soon retracted her story and said she heard a noise, and grabbed her husband’s gun. She told police the gun went off as she reached for a flashlight.

By the time Angela Wilburn made the admission, Greene County deputies had already spent more than 100 man-hours investigating the fictitious attack.