Monday, January 31, 2005

Contempt for rule of law in Distict 7

During Scottsdale Republican Rep. David Burnell Smith's campaign for the State House this last election, he illegally overspent his campaign finance limits by "as much as 22% percent".

Candidate Smith signed his application for certification [PDF) with the Clean Election Commission. He knew what the rules were, yet he appears to have purposefully ignored the law. If found in violation of the campaign finance laws of Arizona by illegally overspending campaign funds, the remedy provided by law is his removal from office.

Smith has 10 days to respond to an independent audit report that claims that he did overspend in his finances. A Dec 31, 2004 interview with the East Valley Tribune mentions Smith's belief that "an appointed body of regulators can't remove a duly elected lawmaker from office, even though state voters approved that provision when they passed the Clean Elections initiative in 1998." Apparently, Smith holds Arizona voters in such contempt, he feels he needen't obey our laws.

Smith said:

"Probably no judge in Arizona would do that (remove him from office)," Smith said. "As a lawyer, I think it's unconstitutional. They could destroy the will of the people for mistakes made in campaigns."


This is coming from the Vice Chair of the House Judiciary Commmittee, no less! Unfortunately, David Burnell Smith, though a lawyer by trade, does not know how the law works. He does not get to decide what is constitutional, that decision is up to the Arizona State Supreme Court.

"It seems enormously difficult to think that an unelected, unconfirmed group of political agnostics can simply disenfranchise 44,000 people," said Lee Miller - Smith's attorney (Political pressure building to oust Arizona legislator, The Arizona Republic Jan. 28, 2005 12:00 AM).


None of the 44,000 people who voted in Smith's District will be disenfranchised. Republican Precinct Chairs get to elect a new legislative representative.

What is a 'political agnostic'? I'm guessing it means anyone who isn't so poisoned by political partisanship that they will enforce the law impartially. If so, count me in. I think the rule of law is a concept and a habit worth defending, unlike those who defend Smith's right to a seat that he cheated the system to achieve.

Iraqi Elections: What Comes Next?

With the election returns in Iraq sent to the counting house, it is time to speculate about what the outcome might mean. Certainly, the Administration’s Pollyanna assertion that that the election heralds a new day for Iraq is puerile, as is today’s propaganda from Allawi’s Administration that American troops will be able to pull out in 18 months.

Elections don’t make a democracy. Iraqi factions participated in this election, to the extent that they did, because 17 billion a year in patronage is up for grabs with control of the Iraqi parliament. Also, the framing of the new Iraqi Constitution will be in the hands of the parliament. Those two incentives are too rich to pass up, but that doesn’t mean that the road to a stable or peaceful Iraq is straight and clear.

The problems that Iraq face are grave and will only reveal themselves over time. Those problems include the continuing violent insurrection of Sunnis in the heart of Iraq, which is only going to be accelerated by their electoral disenfranchisement in today’s vote. Turnout in Sunni areas will prove to have been radically lower than the strong turnout in Kurdish and Shiite areas. The Sunni city of Samarra had only 1400 votes cast out of a population of 200,000. Tikriti polling stations were deserted. As Iraq’s future is determined without Sunni interests strongly represented, the resistance will become a separatist movement. The political dynamic this election has set up will exacerbate the factional centripetal forces already tearing Iraq apart. In creating the conditions for a ‘withdrawal with honor’, the Bush Administration has also set the stage for civil war. The Shiites will come ever more into the orbit of Iran, and the Kurds will alienate everyone by their revanchist insistence on self-rule and control over the Kirkuk oil fields.

The formation of a civil society in Iraq able to negotiate a long-term compromise on which to build a new Iraqi state never had a chance to get rolling. The Bush Administration has bred corruption and dependence into the bones of the occupation government. The use of oil revenues, foreign aid, and reconstruction funds has been shielded behind a wall of unaccountability. Bush murdered the habit of honest and effective administration in the cradle when he called off early provincial elections. He has left the settlement of equitable oil revenue sharing and distribution unsettled like a multi-billion dollar football loose in the middle of a scrimmage. Iraqi democracy, having had just one election in the midst of a low-intensity war, lacks the maturity and respect for the rule of law to make the struggle to control that ball anything other than a melee without any rules or standards. Throw into this mix a likely long-term American military presence and a diplomatic mission bent on controlling Iraqi policy with largess, and this is a recipe for political chaos and rampant corruption.

I have little doubt that regardless of conditions in Iraq, Bush will very soon begin to feel serious pressure to withdraw at least some troops from Iraq. The Administration will of course characterize this as a product of a successful transition of primary security responsibilities to the Iraqi government. Nothing will be further from the truth, however.

The violence and conflict will certainly continue, or even intensify, but the Administration will simply attempt to divert the attention of the media and public elsewhere. After all, if American troops aren’t dying, who cares? We will move into an enclave strategy, minimizing the exposure of our forces and pulling out as many personnel as possible. We will only perform standoff and highly asymmetrical combat operations, such as aerial bombing (which we are already deeply engaged in), drone missions, and coordinated air-ground operations against forces the native troops can’t handle. Bush may be able to pull out as many as 100,000 troops in this way. That would leave roughly 50,000 in theatre with an undisclosed (US law does not require it) number of Special Forces (some estimates of current Special Forces deployed in Iraq at over 40,000).

With the casualty rate so reduced, Bush probably thinks he has well into his second term before more substantial reductions are demanded by an increasingly restive American electorate. Sadly, his calculations of the political risks and rewards of an aggressive war in Iraq haven’t been far off thus far and the Iraqi people continue to pay the price for our self-involved complacence and compromise with the war crimes committed in our names.

Saturday, January 29, 2005

AZ Legislative Brief: Cable Operators Trying to Escape Local Taxation

Senate Bill 1229 is coming down the pike. The Senate is holding hearings on it on Feb 2nd. The purpose of the bill is to prohibit local authorities from taxing cable operators, to whom monopolies have been granted, severely restricting local revenues from cable and gutting public interest programming. This represents a serious attack on the range of viewpoint diversity in local media and a betrayal of the bargain these companies made with local governments when they were given their privileged market positions. You should contact your state senator and representatives to let them know you oppose this industry give-away and reduction in the diversity of local media viewpoints.

Here is the legislative research summary of the bill:


Background

Section 622 of the federal Cable Act allows local franchising authorities to charge the cable operator a fee for the right to operate a cable system in that franchise area; however, the franchise fee paid by the cable system cannot be more than five percent of its annual gross revenue. A franchising authority may use the money collected from this fee for any purpose. A cable operator must list any applicable franchise fee as a separate item on the subscriber’s bill. Cities, towns and counties are not required to collect these license fees, but, according to the Arizona Cable Telecommunications Association, the vast majority of cities, towns and counties collect the full five percent.

The franchise or license fee is calculated using the total gross revenues of the cable operator on cable services only (Internet and telephone services are not included). The fee is passed through directly to customers and appears as a line item on their bill. It is paid quarterly by the cable operator to the city, town or county. In addition to franchise or license fees and taxes, cable operators are sometimes required to collect additional fees from customers, known as subscriber fees or public, education or governmental (PEG) fees to support PEG access channels, which are channels provided by the cable operator to the city, town or county for their use and programming.

The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 exempts a provider of direct-to-home satellite service, also known as direct broadcast satellite service (DBS), from the collection or remittance of any tax or fee imposed by a local taxing jurisdiction.

S.B. 1229 may reduce the revenues collected by cities, towns and counties for cable license fees.

Provisions

1. Modifies the cable license fee a city or town may charge a cable operator to the lesser of one percent of the cable operator’s gross revenues plus the applicable city or town transaction privilege tax (TPT) rate or five percent of the cable operator’s gross revenues. For a county, the fee is the lesser of one percent plus the highest city or town TPT rate or five percent of the cable operator’s gross revenues.

2. Authorizes a city, town or county and cable operator to agree, in a license, to in-kind payments in exchange for right of way use.

3. Limits the value of the in-kind payments to an amount that is less than or equal to the license fee and any levied or assessed TPT.

4. Prohibits a city, town or county from requiring a cable operator to pay any additional monetary or in-kind license fee, tax, fee or charge related to the use of public right of way for providing cable service over and above the license fee.

5. Allows a city, town or county to levy a TPT on a cable operator. The TPT is required to be offset against the maximum license fee.

6. Prohibits a political subdivision from requiring, as a condition of receiving a cable license, a cable operator to provide additional fees or in-kind services to the political subdivision.

7. Limits in-kind services to complimentary line extensions for cable service, complimentary cable service to governments and schools and channel capacity for up to two free public access channels.

8. Limits the valuation of in-kind services to the actual cost of labor and materials used to provide any complimentary line extensions, the standard commercial charge for any complimentary service and the value of the capacity for each noncommercial public, public safety, educational or governmental channel.

9. Allows cities, towns and counties to require a cable operator to pay the reasonable costs for any damage caused to the public highways provided that the costs are comparable to those required to be paid by telecommunications operators who also use the public highways for the construction, operation and maintenance of their facilities

10. Allows cities, towns and counties to require a cable operator to pay any fees, fines, charges or damages for breach of a cable license.

11. Stipulates that cities, towns and counties do not give up their authority to manage public streets, roads and alleys within their boundaries or to exercise their police powers.

12. Prohibits cities, towns and counties from issuing cable licenses, in areas of the jurisdiction that are actually being served by a cable operator with an existing cable license, with terms or conditions that are more favorable or less burdensome than those in any existing cable license issued by that jurisdiction.

13. Contains a legislative findings clause related to the issuance of licenses by a city, town or county to a cable operator to use public right of way.

14. Exempts existing cable licenses in force on June 30, 2005, from the provisions of this legislation until the license is extended or renewed for a term that begins after December 31, 2006.

15. Limits the definition of “gross revenues” to include cash, credits, property or other consideration received from subscribers of the cable service.

16. Conforms definitions to 47 United States Code § 522.

17. Defines terms.

18. Becomes effective on the general effective date.

Prepared by Senate Research

January 25, 2005

AndyW: The Importance of Labor to Progressives


Chris Bowers makes a good point: Democratic apathy on labor issues- and litmus tests for everything but labor issues- has contributed to the decline of the Democratic Party:

…one of the main reasons Democrats are losing elections is because it is okay to
be pro-environment and anti-labor, it is okay to be pro-Roe and anti-labor, it
is okay to be anti-war and anti-labor, it is okay to be anti-patriot act and
anti-labor, but it is never okay to be pro-labor and anti-any of these other
things. It has literally come to the point where you can be pro-liberal, but
anti-labor, and no one seems to care. We can have millennialist rhetoric about
the abolishment of our rights in so many areas, but never in labor, even though
the erosion of labor rights is far more clear than the erosion of nay of our
other rights.

I’m not sure how one can be “pro-liberal, but anti-labor.” I always thought that ‘pro’ the one implied ‘pro’ the other. But I have seen a lot of Democrats who are "pro-liberal, labor-(shrug)." Big Labor corruption in the 60's and 70's probably turned many progressives off to unions which came to be seen as just another arm of Big Business. But, living in Arizona (a “right-to-work” state) we should be working to strengthen the union movement as well as trying to raise the minimum wage. Without card check, binding arbitration, and a Labor Relations Board that works for Labor not Business we’ll have very few jobs that earn much more than the minimum wage. Without strong Labor rights this state will continue its race to the bottom trying to entice businesses with cheap labor as well as low taxes.

Quite frankly, the leadership of our party, in an alliance with the
Republicans, sold unions down the river for middle-class liberalism. Further,
the massive decline in union membership is directly tied to the massive decline
in the Democratic Party, especially at the grassroots level. For the love of
God, unions were our Left Wing Noise Machine, and we destroyed them to protect
our middle class causes at every turn.
[emphasis mine]

The leadership of the party always took it for granted that labor would always be part of the Democratic coalition. So, without pressure from the grassroots to push labor issues, the Democratic leadership ignored labor in a rush for corporate contributions and in an attempt to dodge the Republican smear that Democrats were ‘slaves to Big Labor.’ Greed and cowardice (the usual DLC motivations) led to the decline of the Party. The party needs to return to the roots of the progressive movement: labor and unions.

…. if we are not pro-labor, and loudly pro-labor, the Democratic Party
will die no matter what Noise Machine or grassroots movement we bring to bear.
Period. It is time for a new litmus test, and quite frankly, as far as I know,
the only candidate for chair who passes that test is Howard Dean.
Howard Dean was the only candidate for president who seemed proud to support unions. He talked about the need to repeal right-to-work laws. He is the only candidate for DNC chair who sees labor rights as essential to a progressive revitalization. At DFA we should be “loudly pro-labor,” working with unions and legislators not only to raise the minimum wage but also to strengthen labor rights for everyone in Arizona.

Strong unions make life better for everyone.

Support labor rights at

http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/


Friday, January 28, 2005

Sojourners in Politics

Rev. Jim Wallis, the editor of Sojourners magazine, was recently interviewed by Terry Gross and by Jon Stewart. I think Rev. Wallace, his magazine (which I have been reading for several months now), and his new book, God's Politics are the cat's pajamas.

In many ways, embracing liberal moral values grounded in the teachings of Jesus Christ are more important to rebuilding a Democratic majority than Lakoff's liguistic stratgems. First, Christian "Good Samaritan" ethics connect with many people's core values in a very powerful way. Second, Conservatives just can't argue with Jesus; quote the Bible and the argument is over. Finally, liberal churches and other religious organizations are a great untapped source of institutional organizational and activist power for liberals. That source of power drove the civil rights movements of the 1960s, and has been somewhat dormant since.

These are some of the reasons I invited Rev. Straatemeir to guest blog here. DFA needs to get some religion, and religion needs to get some DFA activism. I'm strictly secular myself and have a harder time appealing directly to religious sentiment, but I was raised in a Presbyterian family and the values stuck fast. I may not believe the Bible is the literal truth, but there is good deal of wisdom to mine there if one is judicious.




Wednesday, January 26, 2005

BrownShirts to the Rescue of the President's Honor in Colorado

Rocky A Denver police officer threatened to arrest a woman for a bumpersticker on her truck that read "Fuck Bush". A miffed citizen first approached the young lady and argued with her about he sticker, then went into the parking lot, and flagged down a cop who actually supported his contention that it was profane and illegal.

The particual issue was settle a generation ago in Cohen v. California. A young man wearing a jacket that read "Fuck the Draft" entered a court building and bruised the sensibilities of the local fussbudgets. Justice Harlan put to rest the notion that the state can outlaw profanity just on the pre-text that someone might be offended with his famous phrase, "One man's profanity is another man's lyric."

So it seems that citizens and peace officers alike are taking into their own hands the power to decide what you or I can belive and say about Mr. Bush, despite established First Amendment law. I feel a strong desire to not only put a sticker on my truck reading "Fuck Bush" but one in addition that reads "Cohen v. CA, 403 U.S. 15".

Update: I thought this such a good idea, I made a bumper sticker for myself that includes both the fuckery and the lawyery. If you would like one, too, you can buy it here.

Polling the Messianic Militarist Revolution

Zogby International has new polling figures out showing that 31% of Americans now say they are 'ashamed that Bush is President', up from 26% a month ago. What happens a year or two from now when that figure goes above 50%?

Bush's job approval is still stuck below 50% and shows a strong regional bias. 59% of voters in the South approve, while Eastern states voters stand at 38%.

In international affairs, 76% of Americans oppose any policy of regime change in Iran. Though it must be said, before the Bush Administration rolled out it scare tactics regarding Iraq, nearly an equivalent percentage opposed military action there. 52% of respondants believe the costs of the Iraq war have not been justified and 55% haven't confidence in America's ability to bring democracy to Iraq, however almost 60% say that the January 30th elections are the best hope for a democratic Iraq.

With even the White House tactitly admitting that the elections will not stop the insurgency, I think we'll see a big collapse in these numbers when people's hopes are most assuredly dashed in the wake of the elections. Bush only gets one bite at this apple, and he's about to choke on it.

America, the Dispensable, and Bush, the Lame Duck

Mike Lind, an analyst at the New America foundation wrote a great commentary, which appeared in the Finanacial Times, on America's increasing irrelevance to the world's future because of the Bush Administration's belligerence and unilateralism. Read the article in which he writes:

"In recent memory, nothing could be done without the US. Today, however, practically all new international institution-building of any long-term importance in global diplomacy and trade occurs without American participation..."

"A decade ago, American triumphalists mocked those who argued that the world was becoming multipolar rather than unipolar. Where was the evidence of balancing against the US? they asked. Today the evidence of foreign cooperation to reduce American primacy is everywhere - from the increasing importance of regional trade blocs that exclude the US to international space projects and military exercises in which the US is conspicuous by its absence."


Even if America petulantly picks up its toys and stalks away to play out its dark little fantasies off in the badlands, the great game goes on. America is no more indespensible to the world than the Soviet Union was. Desptie our pretensions, we need the world far more than the world needs us. We are world's largest debtor, the worlds largest importer, running the largest cumulative trade deficit. Without the rest of world to supply our needs for consumer goods and capital, we would be flat on our faces. The recent massive currency shifts, with the dollar taking a such a pounding against all other world currencies that Saturday Night Live did an oddly topical skit about it, are not a fluke. Foreign central banks are busily reducing their exposure to the dollar by ratcheting down their dollar-denominated reserves. America and her people are getting poorer because of our government's flibbertigibbety policies and we all stand to become radically poorer unless this Administration reigns in its profligate spending, foreign adventurism, and 'screw you' style of diplomacy (a goal not furthered by the tragic confirmation of the cronically failing upwards Ms. Rice).

Corporate profits have increased 39% since 2002 - when denominated in dollars - but have fallen by 8% when denominated in Euros. That level of currency risk is not one that major corporations can or will bear for long. No Administration founded purely on corporate greed can long endure unless that greed is satisfied. Bush may have seemed to many a lion roaring with triumph in his inaugural address, but it was really just the swan song of failed, and increasingly embattled, Administration.

Reagan's second term, won with a landslide, was a complete failure; Bush's second term, won with a notable squeaking sound, will be even worse. I will take bets that by the time Bush leaves office he will have the lowest approval rating of any prior American President, assuming his term doesn't end in some premature fashion. Bush has already failed, he just hasn't seen the fruits of his failure yet. Frist has declared that gutting Social Security will be the Senate's, and by implication the Administration's, top priority this year. Bush is about to prove himself a lame duck on take off when his plans for Social Security crash and burn before ever getting aloft. The AARP has announced its opposition to the Bush proposal, and that's really all she wrote. Bush is losing control of his caucus and has over-reached on an issue for which there never was much of constituency in the GOP, except the most ideologically contaminated. Expect the Administration to quietly change focus and pursue other goals, much as it did in response to the cricket chirps heralding Bush's fabulously ambitious manned mission to Mars proposal.

AZ Legislative Brief: Charter Schools Prosper at the Expense of Public Schools

Drunk with power coming out of national and state elections, the Messianic Militarist wing of the GOP is rolling out its legislative agenda in Arizona, and they are not holding much back. One of the top targets for the GOP is destroying public schools and promoting private ones. A set of bills has been introduced to further that goal.

HB 2378 gives a direct corporate income tax credit of up to 10 million dollars in 2006, scaling up to 50 million a year in 2014, for donations to private schools, or non-profits which provide scholarships to private schools, ONLY for private schools, not for contributions to public schools. This is part of a concerted effort to drain off yet another source of public revenue directly into the coffers of private schools at the expense of public institutions. This attack is coupled to an expansion of the program providing direct individual income tax credits for donations to either public or private schools via concurrently introduced bills in the House (HB 2379) and Senate (S 1081). The attack proceeds under the guise of eliminating the so-called ‘marriage penalty’. Yet these bills first increase the deduction for singles (to $500) and then double it for married couples (to $1000), further eroding the tax base of public schools and redirecting taxpayer money into private schools.

Now, I am not against tax credits to schools. In fact, given the tight-fisted habits of our legislature (Arizona is 48th in K-12 per capita educational spending), I think credits can be a good way to by-pass the shortsighted, anti-education Messianic Militarists who have taken over our state. However, I give my credit to failing or marginal schools in an under-funded area, not to the school across the street from me. Credits tend to go overwhelmingly to schools that really don’t need the added revenue. These tax credits are a sneak attack on public schools, especially those in economically depressed areas that are already under-funded. This manipulation of our tax base to favor private schools is a top priority for the GOP; in fact, diverting more money away from public schools pretty much is the extent of the GOP’s educational policy.

The final prong of this coordinated attack on public schools comes from an unexpected direction. Senate Concurrent Resolution 1010 seeks to place a measure on the 2006 ballot which will require a supermajority (2/3 vote in both houses) in the legislature to authorize or require local taxing authorities to raise additional revenue. This would have wide effect on sub-state taxing authorities, essentially giving the legislature a veto over new revenues for all governmental units in the state. One type of taxing authority that would be subject to this legislative veto would, of course, be local public school districts and the governmental units that fund them. 1010 will result in a minority of the legislature being able to starve public schools of new funding, and don’t believe for a moment that this is accidental: it’s the whole point.

The rhetoric that will be used is tax fairness and limitations. Prop 108, passed in 1992, limited the state government from increasing net revenues without a supermajority vote, and 1010 will be framed as a companion to that popular measure. But 1010 is intended to consolidate complete control of funding for public schools in the state legislature, wherein the public schools can be quietly strangled to death while more and more tax revenues are diverted to private schools via individual and corporate tax credits. The Messianic Militarists are on the march and their first, and most frightening target, is our children’s minds.

Sunday, January 23, 2005

AZ Legislative Brief: HCR 2020 & 2024

We might call it the hundred days from hell. It is time for the 47th Arizona legislature to meet, and I don’t expect much positive news. The slash and burn school of government is firmly in charge of the state legislature, and only the power of the veto pen will keep its worst instincts in check. I’ll be writing a series of articles outlining some of the major and interesting legislation to be considered this session.

Even Napolitano’s mighty pen will prove ineffective against some the referendum revenants that the legislature will be disinterring this session. Two such Concurrent Resolutions, which lead to ballot referendums if passed by a majority of both houses, are today’s subject.

Not content with the voters’ solid defeat of the GOP’s effort to overturn the Clean Elections System, GOP legislators are putting a new red-herring before voters: HCR 2020, which they are likely to call ‘The Family Stabilization Fund.’ In concept, it’s much like stabilizing a Sequoia with a toothpick. This bit of nastiness conceals it’s intent to gut Clean Elections beneath the fig-leaf of putting the fairly paltry amounts that fund elections free of corporate influence into a fund to provide ‘health related’ and ‘educational’ programs to Arizona’s families instead. How touching.

Better is the far more honest effort of HCR 2024 sponsored by Chuck Grey to simply repeal the Clean Elections System. I guess some Republicans really do lack the ability to detect hypocrisy, as one of Concurrent Resolution 2024’s sponsors, Doug Quelland, was elected using the $39,156 provided him by the Clean Elections Commission. But the fun doesn’t stop there! Of those who sponsored the idea of stripping Clean Elections of funds in favor of ‘Family Stabilization,’ Ray Barnes took $35,827.28, Steve Yarbrough took $18,095, and Lucy Mason took $28,300.

Here’s a suggestion, perhaps these fine public servants should pay the citizens of Arizona back out of their own pockets before they put their names on bills seeking to destroy the very system that put them in office. Better yet, maybe they ought to listen to voters who spoke quite clearly in the last election that we like Clean Elections and we intend to keep them, instead of wasting taxpayer money and time, forcing us to say it again and again. The last thing we need is legislators who prove themselves incapable of listening to voters.

Friday, January 21, 2005

Counter-Inaugual Address Provided by Amnesty International

If you were as disgusted as I by Bush's constant abuse of the words 'freedom,' 'democracy,' and 'liberty' in his inaugural inanity, then Amnesty International's letter to Bush on the occassion of his second inauguration will give specific shape to your outrage. The complete hypocrisy of that farce at the capital was apparent to the whole world, though not, apparently, to our own media, who are too chickenshit to call a criminal a criminal, and covered the events of the past few days as if they were some sort of royal coronation. In fact the media's references to 'dynasty,' 'regal,' and 'closest thing to American royalty' were so thick and fast, I nearly choked on my own Jacobin bile. I am so not looking forward to the fawning the press will sink to if JEB runs in 2008.

Others are attending counter-inaugural parties and festivals, but I can't bring myself to do it. I can't celibrate. I can't spit in the wind. I'm too disgusted for my own country. It feels to much like joining hands around the burned-out hulk of the Reichstag and singing Kum-bi-ya. Bucking up in the face adversity is fine, but I won't whistle while the barbarians shit on the Constitution and rape lady liberty in the streets. Don't get me wrong; I don't judge those who feel that they should show the flag to demonstrate we're not beaten, I would just prefer to brood and entertain dark revenge fantasies that I cannot write here without a visit from the Secret Service.

Wednesday, January 19, 2005

A Time for Leaving... Iraq that is.

A window of opportunity is opening as conservatives begin to realize that American security and Iraqi stability depend on a prompt handover. 58% of Americans now disapprove of Bush's Iraq policy. Many sensible, reality-based conservatives among them. Read William Polk's article in The American Conservative on our options in Iraq in which he settles upon disengagement and rapid exit as the most sensible option.

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

What MLK means to DFA

Martin’s life was a wildfire streaking across the American landscape. His hypnotic voice was a paean to America’s soul, and his faith in her values shone like a beacon fire on a storm-tossed shore to a nation lost at sea. His passionate leadership established a standard and a legend that still outshines all who followed where he led. In his tragically short years, he gave hope to those who endured generations of oppression and degradation. Standing at the head of an army united by resolve and hope, he led with wisdom instead of a sword. Few have ever lived life so fully or used their brief time so selflessly. In the annals of history few have achieved such well-deserved acclaim, for few have lived their principles so well.

The impulse to see Martin as a larger than life, protean figure is magnified by the growing distance of time. Some have called Martin America’s Gandhi. The comparison is apt in many ways. Both worked to free a people from the oppression of an imperialistic order. They both fought the tyranny of racism and class divisions. Both led with spiritual vigor and fought injustice with ethical judo. Both recognized that nothing exposed injustice so clearly as non-violent resistance. Both realized that the bonds of an unjust political order could not be broken without overthrowing an iniquitous and cruel economic order. Both were hated as passionately as they were loved. And both ended their lives as martyrs to a political project whose promise remains unfulfilled.

Yet Gandhi seems an ethereal being, untouched by the passions and concerns of men. His legendary asceticism and self-discipline – to the point of nearly starving himself to death for his cause – sets him so far apart from the ordinary clade of men, that to aspire to be like Gandhi is to aspire to sainthood; it verges on hubris. But Martin, outside the glare of the public eye, was not a perfect man. He was a sinful man, often a weak man; and for that we must be grateful. Beneath the veneer of his legend beats the heart of flawed and decidedly unsaintly man, much like ourselves.

Martin was no saint in homespun and spectacles. He was just a person like you or me. No better, certainly, and in some ways, maybe worse. Yet this flawed and fleshly being produced an extraordinary effect on the world. Despite not being a saint, Martin was able to change the world and inspire a nation. The legacy Martin left us is even more extraordinary because it was left by one like us. But Martin’s legacy is not an achievement; it is a work in progress to which each of us must add our part.

Though he was just a man, Martin was able to climb his mountain. Why can’t we do likewise? Martin’s life tells us that we can. We may not be Gandhis, but we too can have a dream. And if we have the courage to share that dream, and live that dream, we too can inspire our fellow citizens. Inside each of us is the self-same spark that in Martin became a mighty blaze.

David Brin on the Real Culture War

Science fiction writer, astronomer, and cultural critic, David Brin, writes of the real culture war in a multi-layered and perceptive essay that calls upon the Left to be as critical of ourselves and our impulses as we are of the Right. He believes that the key to success is aproaching those now outside our coalition with love, understanding, optimism in the liberal project, and the right storyline.

Brin attempts with some success to explode the continued relevancy of the Right-Left spectrum in contemporary politics. Indeed, Brin explodes several of the myths surrounding the recent unpleasantness, including the idea that "morality" played any significant role in the election. Brin concludes that the real issue is modernity itself and how we are going to deal with a century of rapid change which will likely determine whether or not our civilization will survive. Will we look forward with optimism tempered by open critique (Enlightenment), or pine for a simpler time and a pre-ordained end, suppressing open dialog with rigid heirarchies (Romanticism)? High stakes, indeed...

Friday, January 14, 2005

Teleconference With Dean: Supporting Dean for DNC Chairman

I sat in on a teleconference with Dean last night. He wants us all to know that we should let the chairmen of our own state parties who we want to be Chairman of the DNC. If you haven't already expressed your opinion in other ways, tell Jim Pederson who you want to be DNC Chairman. It only takes a minute, and every bit of imput is being carefully weighed by our DNC voters. Be upbeat, polite, and tell your own story. The stories of how Dean has affected you and your invovlement with the Democratic party are the most effective in moving decisionmakers.

Dean also says that the opinion of labor leaders are critical now and will be decisive. If you personally know people in the labor movement, especially in leadership, but also in the rank and file, now is the time to reach out to them. Not with spam and rhetoric, but personally, with phone calls, face-to-face, and handwritten notes.

Letters to the editor supporting Dean for Chairman, and telling how his campaign has affected you, may also be helpful according to Dean. Keep in under 200 words, or less, and be positive.

Show Love for the Donkey

The symbol of the Democratic party is the donkey, as we all know. But few know why.

The donkey first become associated with the Democratic Party when our first populist President Andrew Jackson ran for president in 1828, his opponents tried to label him a "jackass" for his populist views and his slogan, "Let the people rule." Jackson, however, turned ridicule into an advantage by using the donkey on his campaign posters.

The first time the donkey was used in a political cartoon to represent the Democratic party, it was also in conjunction with Jackson. Although by 1837 Jackson was retired, he still thought of himself as the Party's leader and was shown trying to get the donkey (the party, figuratively) to go where he wanted it to go. The cartoon was titled "A Modern Baalim and his Ass".

This is an allusion to a Biblical story in which the donkey becomes the only creature other than man to which God grants the gift of speech. The story of Baalim and his Ass is at Numbers 22:22. Here is an illuminating portion of that story:

When the donkey saw the angel of the Lord, she lay down under Balaam; so Balaam was angry and struck the donkey with his stick.

And the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?"

Then Balaam said to the donkey, "Because you have made a mockery of me! If there had been a sword in my hand, I would have killed you by now."

The donkey said to Balaam, "Am I not your donkey on which you have ridden all your life to this day? Have I ever been accustomed to do so to you?" And he said, "No."

Then the Lord opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing in the way with his drawn sword in his hand; and he bowed all the way to the ground.

The angel of the Lord said to him, "Why have you struck your donkey these three times? Behold, I have come out as an adversary, because your way was contrary to me.

"But the donkey saw me and turned aside from me these three times. If she had not turned aside from me, I would surely have killed you just now, and let her live."


Now isn’t ironic that the donkey is beaten by Baalim for trying to save his life from dangers he is deluded into misapprehending? Yes, I’d have to say that the donkey is ever more an appropriate mascot of the Democratic party. The people may abuse us, cast us out of power, and heap derision upon us, but we remain faithful servents of the public interest none-the-less, trying to strip the scales from the public's eyes and guide them away from danger.

Unfortunately, the abuse of donkeys isn’t always metaphorical, nor electorial, nor are the donkeys always symbolic. There are real donkeys, gentle and patient creatures, who are sorely in need of aid.

Donkeys are regualrly abused on farms, ranches, side shows, and traveling attractions. Hundreds of wild donkeys are in danger of being slaughtered by the Bureau of Land Management. The life some donkeys endure will literally bring tears to your eyes. Fortunately, Peaceful Valley Donkey Rescue is dedicated to helping these animals escape their torturers and live a life free from fear and pain.

Show your love for the donkey, symbol of the democratic values we cherish, by helping a real one find a loving home today.

Thursday, January 13, 2005

Reframing Shop: Compensation Caps

Here is a rewrite of an earlier editorial length article I wrote on the subject of 'tort reform.' In the prior version (use the Google box to search the site for 'tort' if you want to see that version), I stayed within the framing of those seeking to limit the liability of doctors and insurers. By challenging the frame, I think the argument becomes more powerful. The facts don't struggle against the frame, they support it. Rhetorical figures become more powerful and invested with clearer values. Excercies like these prove the worth of Lakoff's toobox.

The medical malpractice (med-mal) insurance industry, some politicians, and even some misguided doctors, have of late been misleading the public about the efficacy of caps on med-mal awards, a.k.a. ‘tort reform,’ to contain healthcare costs. These people have generated a deluge of coordinated letters to editor and public relations events in Arizona recently. They are telling the public that med-mal awards are driving the high inflation rates in the health care sector we’ve seen over the past several years. But the truth is that their so-called ‘tort reform’ is just a free ride for insurers and incompetent doctors on the backs of seriously injured patients.

‘Tort Reform’ is really nothing more than arbitrary compensation caps protecting doctors who harm or kill their patients and the companies who insure them. Policy makers actually interested in reforming the torts process would advocate for ways to remove non-meritorious claims from the system, not for placing a strict limit on the compensation a jury can award to victims of malpractice. The cost of caring for a child paralyzed or otherwise disabled for a lifetime by malpractice can run into the millions, yet these so-called ‘reformers’ want to cap all awards at a low level, regardless of the facts of the case. That’s not justice, that’s risk management, and it’s not what our court system is based upon. Why is a legislator, who may be getting campaign contributions from the insurance industry, better qualified to put a price on a lifetime of pain than a fellow citizen who is disinterested but knows the facts of the case?

Exploiting consumers’ understandable concern about the affordability of healthcare, compensation cap advocates mislead the public into supporting the curtailment of their own right to full compensation for all damages due to malpractice. But it is high rates of inflation in healthcare costs generally that cause inflation of med-mal premiums, not the other way around; prescribing compensation caps to contain healthcare costs is like trying to make the tail wag the dog.

Although premiums for med-mal insurance have risen sharply in the past few years, this increase is not due to an ‘explosion’ in settlements and jury awarded compensation to victims of medical malpractice. In fact, the increase in med-mal payments conforms closely to the overall rate of medical inflation.

Increasing premiums are actually the product of the current poor investment environment. Because med-mal insurance companies depend on financial investments for the bulk of their profits, premiums for med-mal insurance have historically risen sharply in response to economic downturns. When interest rates and the equity markets are down, insurers increase premiums to preserve industry profitability. Current calls for compensation caps are reminiscent of those heard during prior recessions.

Nor do Med-mal torts constitute a significant share of healthcare costs. Even with recent inflation, the average doctor’s premiums are less than 4% of his revenues, and malpractice claims amount to only 1/2 of 1% of total healthcare costs. The average claim is a modest $140,000, and the average settlement is just under $30,000. Less than 5% of awards top one million dollars (and about 3/4 of those are reduced by the courts to an average of $250,000). These averages are already well below most suggested compensation cap limits.

Few injuries even make it into the court system. Only 1 in 8 injuries due to malpractice are ever filed, and more than 3/4 of filed claims are dismissed. The existing legal system, and peoples' natural reluctance to sue doctors, winnows out the vast majority of claims already. We can do a better job of ensuring that frivolous suits do not go forward by vetting cases independently before they are filed, and having higher standards for med-mal lawyers. But arbitrary compensation caps will not eliminate nuisance suits; they will only harm the victims of malpractice.

Some claim that the savings realized by elimination of incentives for physicians to practice ‘defensive medicine’ justify compensation caps. But the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has found no statistically significant difference in per capita healthcare spending between states with and without limits on malpractice awards. Defensive medicine costs are illusory.

To reduce the number and expense of med-mal claims, the most sensible approach is to improve the quality of healthcare, not to arbitrarily limit the payments to people who have suffered terrible injuries. Properly compensating victims according to objective juries’ awards isn’t causing a crisis in malpractice insurance; the ultimate cause is the breakdown of self-regulation in the medical profession.

It is a very small number of incompetent doctors who cause the public a disproportionate amount of the suffering and expense malpractice causes. Fewer than 5% of doctors are responsible for more than 50% of all med-mal claims, but, of the roughly 5,000 doctors nationally who have paid four or more med-mal awards, fewer than 15% have ever been disciplined by their state boards. Physicians need to more stringently police their own, and force med-mal insurers to rate doctors by their experience and track record, so that good doctors aren’t in the same risk pool with incompetents who are regularly harming their patients, as is now the case.

Compensation caps are not a workable solution to the problems of our health care system. Several states already have caps on non-economic damages in med-mal cases, including Texas, California, Florida, Missouri, and Nevada. Given that some of our most populous states have caps, one would think that this might have some effect on med-mal premiums nationally or at least within those states, but states with caps have continued to see their premiums go up, even as compensation to victims has gone down.

Successful health care cost containment will come from comprehensive reform in how we deliver health care services, not compensation caps. Nations who deliver health care more universally, use more preventive care, and who reduce the administrative costs through a national insurance system, realize per capita savings of 25% or more compared to our system. Compensation cap advocates cannot credibly claim anything even approaching such a significant savings. If we are going to decide to place the burden of cost containment so heavily on the shoulders of those maimed and crippled by malpractice, shouldn’t we at least be able to demonstrate savings greater than those available by any other means?

Reforms are certainly needed where high med-mal premiums are driving some physicians out of vital, high-risk specialties, such as surgery or obstetrics, but compensation caps don’t address the real problems of these specialized market segments. Government reinsurance assistance, carefully considered legislative reform of physician liability in problem specialties, expert pre-litigation review boards, and other creative, targeted approaches will produce real, and fair, results. Compensation caps are a cure far worse than the disease they are purported to cure; doctors call such nostrums snake oil.

Compensation caps are nothing but a means of helping insurance companies cushion their business cycles, not a means of containing the run-away costs of our health care system. Compensation caps are more pork for big insurance at the expense of severely injured victims.

Wednesday, January 12, 2005

Are Civil Rights Protected by Direct Democracy?

This landed in my in-box from a ConLaw professor in New York:

I'm researching a book (titled America's Struggle over Same-Sex Marriage) and currently am in Oregon conducting interviews with participants in the Measure 36 campaign, one of the 13 ballot referenda last year placing one-man-one-woman limitations on the definition of marriage in state constitutions.

Yesterday, I met with someone affiliated with the Oregon Family Council who criticized the decision last March by the Multnomah County (Portland) Commissioners extending marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The process, and not the substance, of their actions was the target of his lament, stating that the commissioners had not acted openly in making the policy choice and had not invited public participation. He then said, "The people are smart enough, fair enough, and wise enough to make important social policy decisions."

Later in the interview, he expanded on the thought: "A well run initiative campaign by the gay community listing, say, the top 20 rights of marriage (intestate succession; visiting each other in the hospital; making medical-care decisions; etc.) might have worked. They should have taken it to the people and said, 'Prove to us that you're not biased against homosexuals. Prove your basic decency and fairness. Look at these rights and acknowledge that they're appropriate for us to have.' I think such a campaign would have done very, very well in Oregon."

I then asked him if he could provide examples from American history of statewide referenda that had the effect of expanding the rights of a disadvantaged minority. He could not.

I have further interviews scheduled with supporters of Measure 36 and ask your help: Are there instances of initiatives or referenda in the United States where voters indeed expanded the rights of minorities (racial, ethnic, disabled, etc.)? My (superficial) knowledge is that they've only had the effect of contracting rights.


It is an interesting question. I looked back into our own state's history in answer to that query and the result, while mixed, was suprisingly positive. On the whole, I'd say when faced with fairly unadorned and clear incursions into minority and personal rights, voters do tend to reject them more often than not. Their record is far from perfect, however, and it often takes many years for a final position on an issue to be clarified.

Measures arguably limiting minority, or general rights:

1918- Reinstating Death Penalty -
limits right of convicts not to be killed by state - passed

1946- "right to work" -
limiting the ability to organize labor by restricting closed shops (though some would see this, as the title implies, as a right not have to join a union to work. As union members are materially better off, this seems a dubious right at best) - passed

1948- Limits on Workmen's Compensation -
limiting the recovery of workers injured or disabled on the job - passed

1950 - Segregation of schools -
Limiting ability of minorities to attend schools of their choice - failed

1986 & 1994- tort reform -
limiting right to recover damages for injuries in court - failed

1992 - abortion -
limiting the right of women to control reproduction and bodies - failed

1998 - cockfighting -
restricts the right to engage in cockfighting sport - passed (One can credibly argue that this measure protects the rights of... well, cocks... and is not an imposition on any recognized right of persons. Fair enough, but I'm marking it red anyhow. I don't think it proper than cocks be number among minorities.)


Measures arguably expanding minority, or general rights:

1914- Alien rights-
non-citizens right of employment - passed

1916- Death Penalty Abolishment -
right of convicted criminals not to be killed by state - passed

1916 & 1918 - Workmen's Compensation -
right to be compensated for disabling injuries at work - failed

1944- welfare -
annuities for the disabled and blind to be free of abject poverty - failed

1964 - Reapportionment of school funds -
right to equal educational funding - passed (though admittedly this is better in concept than execution in the hands of our legislature...)

1982 - Motor Voter -
right to register to vote when applying for driver's license and thus, demonstrably, to have more opportunities to participate in the political proces - passed

1996 - Drug reform -
decriminalizes victimless crimes of substance possession - passed (gutted through a variety of means, however)

1998- Initiative and Referedum Protection -
protects the right of direct democracy against state government - passed

2000 - health care for working parents -
expanded the right to basic health care to working parents - passed


Campaign finance reform is either an expansion of collective rights to an uncorrupted democracy, or a limitation of the wealthy minority's right to corrupt democracy, depending on how you look at it; I suppose you could just call it toss up, but I call it a huge victory. Also ambiguous is how Prohibition might be counted, which both came and went by initiative; I call it a wash. Perhaps someday the 'War on Drugs' can also be called a wash.

This brief, and probably incomplete, survey shows a lot more green than red. When faced with choices the expand rights, equality, freedom, and dignity, voters do tend to do the right thing. There are lamentable exceptions. How are these explained? I tend to hope that they are symptoms of successful campaigns of misinformation and Orwellian language (Right to Work being an example), or of a mass hysteria regarding the unknown and unfamiliar which will ameliorate given time and education (gay rights and the threatened internment of Muslims of South Asian descent being the most troubling current examples).

I could hardly be an advocate of 'Strong Democracy' and more direct participation in governance by American voters were I to believe the American people to be reliably small-minded and cruel. If I have any criticism of Howard Dean, it is that he has often seemed too critical of direct democratic institutions. However, Dean's concern stems more from how the system can be abused than discomfort with the process itself.

I believe that the beneficence of initiatives and referenda depends on who is presenting their agenda most cogently and clearly to the voters via those direct democracy channels; too seldom is it progressives and activists. DFA should aim to change that. Americans tend to agree with our values, our priorities, and our goals, we just have to work on the presentation and the organization to get our message out reliably and undistorted. Direct democracy may be he last bastion of mass issues policitics, and we had best becomes its master, lest conservatives use it to master us.




Tuesday, January 11, 2005

Inching Toward the End Zone

Republican Congressman Howard Coble, an ally of Bush, calls for withdrawal from Iraq citing his dispair over the Administration ever demonstrating an effective post-occupation strategy. He voted for the invasion, and still believes it was the right decision. Yet his comments put him in a small but growing minority of Republican lawmakers who think the US should withdraw from Iraq, including those 6 GOP lawmakers who voted against the resolution under which Bush claimed the authority to invade Iraq.

Of such small and incremental progress are new coalitions made. It is a small nudge in the right direction. If Progressives lean hard on the face-saving and pragmatic lever of poor planning and worse post-invasion execution, we can pry more and more key people out of the coalition that is keeping us in Iraq. Surely, for every Coble there are ten or twenty others who quietly harbor the same concerns. Our goal is for them to cease their silent doubting and make evident their concerns.

I know the desire to demonize Bush and all those who voted for military action, repudiating the invasion entirely, is strong; I share it entirely. But refraining from recriminations and instead decrying the cost our troops are paying for the Administration's incompetence and a lack of strategic goals is the best means to growing a consensus for a speedier withdrawal.

Once we are out of Iraq, or the political decision to leave has been made, there will be ample time for the judgment of history on Bush's adventure in Iraq. We face four years in which the chances for a change of leadership is vanishingly small, and no re-election awaits. Our tactics must fit the environment. Bush can only be stopped from accomplishing his goals by Democrats sticking together and getting conscientious members of the GOP to join with us. That doesn't mean collaboration, nor logrolling, nor appeasement; that way lies irrelevance. Democrats must stand on our principles and make those principles attractive to real conservatives.

The cost of this war in dead and greiviously wounded soldiers mounts daily. The many thousands of dead and newly desperate Iraqi civilians promise a generation of strife and reprisals. The barbaric acts ordered and executed in our names affront the dignity and self-image of Americans more every day. With such a legacy of woe, compounded by the damage he's done to our domestic finance and social conhesion, history is not likely to be kind the drunken, born-again, ne'er-do-well scion of the Bush clan. We know he's the worst President ever, we needen't make that our chief argument against his works, or rub our opponents noses in it, however. Our only reward will be spite.

We had best let history make the judgement on Iraq, and on Bush, and just focus on getting our troops out of harms way as soon as we are able.

Good Sign, Wrong Place

It is always good to see government thinking ahead and staying current with what constituents want. In this case they want free wireless internet broadband. Tempe's first system, at the downtown Tempe Beach Park, has just come online. Where is Tucson's? Where is the proposal for Tucson's roll-out of hot spots? There are many areas that the private sector cannot economically serve where wireless would none-the-less enhance learning, productivity, convenience, commerce, and quality of life.

Tempe's achievement comes as a partnership between ASU and Tempe. Arizona State University President Michael Crow proclaimed that this is a step toward making Tempe a leading "knowledge" city, calling it, "a place where living, learning and working can go on anywhere at anytime and at any location without any hindrance or encumbrance."

Republican Hugh Hallman, who is partnering with Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon to try to pass a tax bribe moritorium, deserves credit for understanding the importance of ASU and the knowledge economy to his community's future. It's obvious to most that UofA is central to Tucson's future growth and prosperity; even Mayor Cheerleader gets that much. Our task as progressives is to lay out a compelling vision of what to do about it.

Dean Announces Official Bid for DNC Chair

Dear Michael,

I wanted to write to you first because you have been a real leader and a crucial part of all of our work.

As I have traveled across our country, I have talked to thousands of people who are working for change in their own communities about the power of politics to make a difference in their own lives and in the lives of others. Every group I have spoken to, I encouraged them to stand up for what they believe and to get involved in the electoral process -- because the only sure way to make difference is to step up and run for office yourself.

Today, I'm announcing my candidacy for the Chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee.

The Democratic Party needs a vibrant, forward-thinking, long-term presence in every single state and we must be willing to contest every race at every level. We will only win when we show up and fight for the issues important to all of us.

Another integral part of our strategy must be cultivating the party's grassroots. Our long term success depends on all of us taking an active role in our party and in the political process, by volunteering, going door to door and taking the Democratic message into every community, and by organizing at the local level. After all, new ideas and new leaders don't come from consultants; they come from communities.

As important as organization is, it alone can no longer win us elections. Offering a new choice means making Democrats the party of reform -- reforming America's financial situation, reforming our electoral process, reforming health care, reforming education and putting morality back in our foreign policy. The Democratic Party will not win elections or build a lasting majority solely by changing its rhetoric, nor will we win by adopting the other side's positions. We must say what we mean -- and mean real change when we say it.

But most of all, together, we have to rebuild the American community. We will never succeed by treating our nation as a collection of separate regions or separate groups. There are no red states or blues states, only American states. And we must talk to the people in all of these states as members of one community.

That word -- 'values' -- has lately become a codeword for appeasement of the right-wing fringe. But when political calculations make us soften our opposition to bigotry, or sign on to policies that add to the burden of ordinary Americans, we have abandoned our true values.

We cannot let that happen. And we cannot just mouth the words. Our party must speak plainly and our agenda must clearly reflect the socially progressive, fiscally responsible values that bring our party -- and the vast majority of Americans -- together.

All of this will require both national perspective and local experience. I know what it's like to lead hands-on at the state level and I know what it's like to run for national office.

With your help, this past election season, Democracy for America, already started creating the kind of organization the Democratic Party can be. This past election cycle, we endorsed over 100 candidates at all levels of government -- from school board to U.S. Senate. We contributed almost a million dollars to nearly 750 candidates around the country and raised millions of dollars for many more candidates.

Together, we helped elect a Democratic governor in Montana, a Democratic mayor of Salt Lake County, Utah and an African American woman to the bench in Alabama. Fifteen of the candidates we endorsed had never run for office before -- and won.

I also have experience building and managing a local party organization. My career started as Democratic Party chair in Chittenden County, Vermont. I then ran successful campaigns: for state legislature, lieutenant governor and then governor. In my 11-year tenure as governor, I balanced the state's budget every year.

I served as chair of both the National Governors' Association and the Democratic Governors' Association (DGA). And as chair of the DGA, I helped recruit nearly 20 governors that won -- even in states like Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Mississippi.

All of these experiences have only reaffirmed what I know to be true. There is only one party that speaks to the hopes and dreams of all Americans. It is the party you have already given so much to. It is the Democratic Party.

We can win elections only by standing up for what we believe.

Thank you and I look forward to listening to your concerns in the weeks ahead.

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

Ed.- Give 'em hell, Howard! Or, as he likes to say, tell them the truth and they'll just think it's hell...

White Elephants: A Modest Proposal

The "For Sale" sign was just put up at Biosphere 2. Talk about your ultimate white elephant. Who could possibly be foolish enough to buy that thing?

Actually, it gives me idea.

What better place for a bunch of white elephants than in a white elepant? If the Dominionists could be convinced to purchase the Biosphere 2 it could be a perfect solution all around. They get a world of their own to inhabit physically, rather than just mentally, as has been the case heretofore. They can pollute it 'till their little hearts' content, run it as they see fit, and when they rapture and armageddon comes, they won't bug too many of us real people on the outside trying to get on with life and find solutions to our problems.

Monday, January 10, 2005

What the Iraqi Election Reveals About Bush's Motives

The Administration continues on course to spark a full-scale civil war in Iraq. General Brent Scowcroft, perenially a critic of this Bush Administration's Iraq policies now says he believes the vote, under current conditions, has great potential for deeping the conflict. Specifically, if the Sunnis boycott the vote and are not represented in the resulting government, the insurgency is certain to continue, deepen, and take on even more the character of a civil war between Sunnis and Shia'a. In addition, the Kurds will be left with a minority position and little protection from the Shia'a majority under the current Constitution, leaving us with the choice between supporting the government we have fought to create in its almost undoubted assault on the aims of the Kurds, or to support the Kurdish minority's asperations against our own client governement. None of these scenarios is the rosy picture of a blooming democratic desert that the Bush Administration likes to paint. Even if the elections CAN go forward, they are only going to make things even worse.

Into this tragic picture pops a ray of hope from an unexpected source: the Association of Muslim Scholars held talks with a US delegation over the weekend and made the extraordinary offer to call off the Sunni election boycott in return for a timetable for US (note they did not say 'foriegn', just 'US') troop withdrawl. Sadly, the Bush Administration has rejected the offer and refuses to set any sort of map to withdrawal.

Apparently, the Administration does have contingency plans in place which might lead to withdrawal (pigs flying and unseasonally cold weather in Hades are rumoured to be some of the preconditions) at some point after the January 30th elections. But they are unwilling to really spell out the conditions, let alone a date certain. You have to wonder why Bush is so unwilling to negotiate on this issue. It is obviously critical to have Sunni participation for legitimacy's sake and, more fundamentally, to avoid a full-scale civil war with our troops in the middle. Bush has lied so well and so often can't he tell just an additional little one, like a date for withdrawal, for such an important purpose? Obviously, Bush is an "ends-means" ethicist, why can't we get a little of that thing he does so well in the cause of peace, instead of for breaking Medicare, dismantling Social Security, waging the 'War on Terror', 'tort reform', screwing the environment, and all those other things he's lied about? Just once, can't Bush lie FOR us?

Even handed the gift of legitimate and largely peaceful elections on a platter by AMS, Bush will have none of it because it doesn't suit his purposes. Either Bush and his Neo-Con cronies are some seriously deep files, which even old schemers like Scowcroft can't fathom, or Bush is just intent on making, and keeping Iraq a divided, bloody, mess of a 'nation' for the forseeable future in the cause of keeping his handpicked henchmen in power, and his favorite cronies knee-deep in contracts. Personally, I think the latter is a lot more likely.

Why would he sacrifice American lives, honor, and treasure to this miserable enterprise, you might ask? Simple. Because he can.

Floating Logos

Some things are just so... odd, that you have to share.

Saturday, January 08, 2005

Senator 'Strangelove' Kyl

Great work by Tim Vanderpool at the Weekly at revealing the Emperor's lack of duds. Kyl is one of the creepiest of creeps, who regularly drags our language into the closet and abuses it in Owellian ways. He's slick, he's legally trained, and I'm pretty well convinced his suits are bespoke. We have a chance to defeat him in 2006 if we can find a candidate who is august, inspiring, compassionate, down-to-earth, and likable. Or someone with wooden stake. Kyl the ideologue, as the Policy Chair of the Senate GOP Caucus, sits at the center of the GOP's counsels of power. After re-electing Janet, taking Kyl down should be our #2 goal in 2006.

I love Stuart Starkey, but we can no longer afford token opposition to our GOP senators. We must recruit candidates who have a credible chance of doing more than showing the flag. Whomever that person is, we need to find him or her soon, and start campaigning to rid Arizona of Kyl right now. 98% retension rates in Congress indicate that Kyl has a near insurmountable position unless he rapes a javelina live on television or intentionally runs over a few infants on his driveway. The only way we are going to pry him out of office is an unprecedented grassroots mobilization to ferret out and publicize every rotten thing he's done to this state and this country while in office, collect ungodly amounts of money for his challenger (about 6 - 8 million should do it), and register everyone who has even seen a picture of a donkey as Democrats.

Or we could find a moderate Republican to defeat him or weaken him in the primaries. Probably, we should do both. One thing's for certain, the kind of timid, uninspiring consensus candidates which the Party has been offering aren't doing the job. We had one of the best opportunities in the nation to defeat a sitting Congressman in CD 1 last year, and Babbit wasn't nearly up the job. Not that Babbit isn't a good public public servant and much better man than Dick Renzi, he is; but he didn't even come close to besting Virginia Dick. Our candidate is going to have to come from the grassroots, someone known, but not a professional politician. Someone media savvy, but not overexposed. Someone with impeccable ethical, intellectual, and community credentials.

No, I don't already have anyone in mind. If you do have an idea, leave a comment about who you would like to see run against Kyl. Remember, residency requirements for Senators are very lax, anyone in the nation could easily qualify to run against Kyl so you needn't limit the choices to current Arizona residents.

GOP Threatens the Rule of Law Yet Again

The GOP strikes another blow against democracy in KY. They GOP majority seated Dana Stephenson as state Senator even though they knew she did not meet the constitutional residency requirement. Yet another example of how the GOP is increasingly contemptuous of the rule of law, so long they are enabled to wield ever more power. The GOP is damaging the foundation of our nation's government; the faith that we have a government of laws, not a government of men.

Granted, even some GOP members are disgusted by such naked use of power in the face of legal restrictions (Bob Leeper (R) threatened to resign from the state Senate over the incident, and even though he switched from being a conservative Democrat last year, giving control of the Senate to the GOP, you could write to him and tell him you are proud of him for standing up for the law), but not enough Americans are holding the GOP to account for thier many abuses of power.

Anyone familiar with operant conditioning learning theory will tell you that failing to punish, and even rewarding, bad behavior carries the certainty of inspiring yet more of the same behavior. When Republican voters fail to punish their politicians who abuse, distort, and ignore the law, ethics, and American notions of justice and fair play, they may spur their party to greater power in the short-term, but they are destroying the habits of constititutional democracy that are the foundations of the American way of life in the process.

Hostage Taking by America in Iraq

Today, I was reading Martin Gilbert’s A History of the Twentieth Century: Volume One: 1900 – 1933. It is organized year by year, and so far I have read only through 1905. Yet already I have come across several instances where colonial powers used the tactic of taking hostages from the civilian families of rebellious native populations in an effort to pacify them. During the Boer wars the English held rebel Boers’ families hostage in concentration camps where the conditions were so deplorable that the British people were outraged by reports coming from South Africa. Even though the British public strongly supported the war, this practice was widely denounced. In the Congo, while it was a crown property of the King of Belgium, it was a common practice to hold family members of a man hostage until he returned from the bush with his daily quota of rubber. This practice, among other attrocities, inspired the Belgians to buy the Congo from the King in order to end the abuses. In German South West Africa the German army held civilian populations as hostages to try to quell the rebellion of the Herero and Witboi tribes. There was outrage in all European capitals upon learning of this news.

Again and again the use of civilian hostages to contol conquered populations is seen in that age of colonialism. I expect I will find more examples of this practice as I continue through the years, and would find yet more if I examined colonial history more closely. Yet time and again when colonial armies or administrations resorted to this tactic the home populations reacted with outrage when the news arrived in ‘civilized’ lands. People took up petitions and the members of parlements and legislatures demanded the government cease the practice. Foreign embassies rattle sabers and sternly urged reform. Even in this barbarous age a century ago, when it was acceptable and normal to militarily dominate other people for profit and trade, people felt outrage against a practice which turned their fellow humans into helpless hostages, even in midst of a murderous rebellion.

One might think that such barbaric times and practices were far behind us, but of course, they are not. The same tactic is being used by American forces today in Iraq to pacify that colonial rebellion. Americans forces regularly incarcerate the family members of suspected insurgents without charges to bring pressure to bear on the rebels. These practices have been reported in the press and documented in the legislative record, yet there is no outcry by the American public, no legislative demands for an end to the practice. Few seem to care, certainly not enough to do anything to stop it.

No, things have not changed that much in the business of empire over the last century, but something has changed in us. Somehow we have become more innured to cruelty and injustice. Or perhaps we just no longer see our opponents as humans worthy of basic dignity and rights. Whatever the cause, it is chilling to reflect that while we have progressed a century on so many fronts, in war and its ethics, we have regressed even from that distant and brutal time of 1905.

Thursday, January 06, 2005

Anti-Gay Overreaching

The Referendum which the Republican controlled legislature will place on the 2006 ballot will ban civil unions and domestic partner benefits as well as gay marriage. Perversely, this is good news.

Public support for the previos two issues is strong and can be used as wedge issues with those who would vote to oppose gay marriage were it the sole issue addressed. There is a very good chance of defeating this Referendum if we focus on the populations other than gays who are also affected by its provisions, and the equity and justice issues raised by a bar on civil unions and domestic partner benefits.

It was, I suppose, inevitable that we would have such an proposal here after gay marriage bans passed in 11 states. It is good news that the Right has become so over-confident that they handed us the bat with which to beat them back in 2006.

Tax Bribes Aren't a Road to Healthy Economic Growth

State Senator Jay c (R-21) is sponsoring a bill which would prevent municipalities from giving businesses tax rebates as an emergency measure. It's a baby step, admittedly, but it is a step in the right direction. Emergency adoption avoids public hearing and discussion of such measures and makes public comment irrelevant. Other bills have sought to stem the tide of tax bribes (estimated at over 420 million over the last two years in the Phoenix area alone), but have failed to pass the legislature, or in some cases, failed to even get out of committee.

Business lobbyists are quick to claim that the revenue lost to such 'incentives' is quickly recouped through new tax reciepts and defrayed infrastructural costs. Like spending money on junk food with little or no nutritional value instead of good healthy food, such deals may seem like a bargain now, but in the long term they sap the vitality of the communities who gorge on the highly processed sugar and starches that are tax bribes.

If a company is only locating in your community because of tax incentives, and pulls their profits out of your community, all the while placing often unfair and subsidized competitive pressure on local businesses, your community becomes a hostage to non-local businesses with no roots, no loyalty, and no investment in the community. The community is at the whims of the business cycle and decisions taken far away. This is why towns and cities with strong local economies are more recession-proof than those which have been colonized by chains, franchises, and multi-national corporate facilities. The tax base shrinks as local business withers. The expatriated profits of those opportunistic business interests, which demand tax bribes to locate, leave the town with 70% less reinvestment per dollar of profit compared to local business. The municipality can easily find itself on a slippery slope in economic hard times, struggling to keep up vital services while hostage to the increasing demands of mercenary businesses demanding ever-greater tax bribes in the name of their 'profitability'.

Reform of this practice of using tax bribes to pump up artifical growth is sorely needed in Arizona, but even though the GOP claims they want less interference in the market by government, they are held hostage by business interests who have become addicted to the empty calories available at the public trough. I commend Mr. Tibshraeny for filing the bill. I wish more politicians would demonstrate leadership on this practice of tax bribery, which neither party supports, but neither can seem to definitively denounce and promise to stamp out.

Frist Nukes Himself in the Foot

Despite his hypocritical criticism of the filibuster as a tool of minority last resort to block unacceptable nominees, Frist himself voted to block a Clinton nominee indefinitely using the filibuster in 2000 - and then lied about it on TV. This sort of rank hypocrisy is why the GOP will squander their majority in record time. Today they command every branch of government, but in won't be long before 'leadership' like Frist's will leave the GOP clinging to only the courts, the traditional repository of fallen majorities, which they are now packing with partisans - a process hampered by Democratic filibusters, of course.

Tuesday, January 04, 2005

Rev. Gerry: Global Agribusiness and Immigration

Hi everyone,

On Dec 15 I wrote a piece called “Pima farm subsidies and US immigration policy” connecting US farm subsidies to the wave of displaced farmers and agricultural workers pouring over our borders looking to help their family survive, and pointed to Pima county farmers who are receiving $ millions that help starve out Latin America. The following piece from the NY Times illustrates the way multinational corporations in developing countries destroy even local markets for local farmers, and the cost to local families and economies.

I know we are in transition as a global economy. I have no answers. But during this transition, we can only proceed with humanity by examining all of the intended and unintended consequences of our actions. We just can’t take everything people had and then be mad when they look to us to help them stay alive.

In peace, Gerry

“José Luis Pérez Escobar, 44, a member of the co-op, scratched out a living for 20 years from his small field, perched in the clouds here.

But after his potato crop failed last year, he migrated to the United States to save his land from foreclosure by the bank, leaving his wife, María Graciela Lorenzana, and their five children behind. He now works the graveyard shift at a golf course in Texas for $6 an hour so he can pay his debts.

He had dreamed his cooperative would help him escape poverty by selling directly to the supermarkets. "It would be magnificent," Mrs. Lorenzana recalled of that more hopeful time. "The small farmer would not need a middleman. But he was never able to achieve it." Read More... (free registration req.)

Sore Losers?

The next time a Republican accuses you of being a sore loser because of your dissatisfaction about GOP dominance due to unethical redistricting shenanagans, illegitimate judicial election decisions, and the dubious fairness of an election system rife with fraud, point them to Montana, where the GOP is in a pickle over exactly these issues that handed control of the Governorship, State Senate and exactly 1/2 of the State House - to Democrats. As a result, GOP Representatives have elected a Democrat for Speaker with the assistance of a small group of renegade Democratic Representatives. They feel that their Democratic candidate will be more bi-partisan and fair than the choice of the Democratic Causcus, giving them some small voice in a government now totally dominated by the new ruling party: the Democrats.

Irony: it's not just for Blue-staters any more.

Monday, January 03, 2005

The Democratic Virtues

Paul Lachilier, a young Wisconsin grad student who challenged the Massachusetts Speaker of the State House for his seat in 2002 as a Green Party candidate says some important things in a recent editorial which appeared in the Albuquerue Journal while I was there over holidays.

He proposes that there are Democratic virtues of the citizenry which keep democracy strong and it is grassroots political organization and involvement which excercises and inculcates those virtures.

"In his autobiography, founding father Benjamin Franklin enumerated 13 virtues he believed led to a morally more perfect life, if systematically mastered. They are temperance, silence, order, resolution, frugality, industry, sincerity, justice, moderation, cleanliness, tranquility, chastity and humility.

Franklin’s virtues are considered a classic expression of the so-called Protestant ethic, a disciplined lifestyle and set of cultivated habits that sociologist Max Weber said nurtured capitalism.

To my knowledge, remarkably, no corollary personal ethic has so succinctly been proposed to nurture democracy. Yet if democracy, as popularly defined, means government of, for and by the people, then the disposition of the people toward their government is critical to democracy.

That democratic disposition, or civic ethic, does not simply mean belief in representative government and individual rights. Nor is it simply a willingness to pay attention and vote once every when an election rolls around. The civic ethic is an ongoing lifestyle, a set of everyday actions and attitudes that allow democracy to flourish the more citizens practice them.

With a new year upon us, with its ritual reflection on how we can become better persons, here are three components of a civic ethic ever more needed in an ever more dangerous world:

A democratic disposition

First and arguably foremost, democracy demands citizens disposed to engage with each other to pursue common good, from a local dog park to world peace. This engagement ethic must be as strong if not stronger than the tempting disposition to withdraw from public life into what political scholar Alexis de Tocqueville called our “small, private circles” of family and friends.

Furthermore, in a country and a world often deeply divided, engaging those different from us in ongoing ways is far more important than engaging the like-minded. Engaging those like us may be more comfortable and easy, but engaging those different from us can be all the more rewarding and politically significant when such engagement succeeds in bridging social divides.

Yet precisely because such bridging engagement is difficult, it develops less easily and thus needs patient nurturing.

A sociological imagination

Perhaps one of the most effective way to nurture the engagement ethic is to develop citizens’ sociological imagination, a term sociologist C. Wright Mills coined to refer to the ability of individuals to connect their private troubles to public problems.

The connections are countless and profound, including personal debt and the vast credit economy, obesity and food industry practice, work-family pressures and employment policy, teen delinquency and the modern segregation of youth from adults, alcoholism and unemployment rates, to name just a few. The more inclined we are to grasp these connections, the more inclined we may be to engage with public issues.

Ambivalent passion

Passion for an ideal – whether that ideal be conservative, moderate or liberal – likewise moves citizens to engage more than does the dispassionate reason some political scholars advocate. But citizens also need ambivalence to temper their self-righteous passion.

Ambivalence entails a number of virtuous dispositions, such as the disposition to recognize the limits of our ideals and the strengths of competing ideals, the disposition to question rather than demonize or deify and the disposition to consider the consequences of the means we pursue to achieve our ideals.

Passion and ambivalence can and do often conflict, and so being ambivalently passionate is an ongoing, self-critical balancing act.

These civic virtues need not be learned in school. Indeed, much of what we know and believe we do not learn in school. To the extent that citizens learn any civic virtues, as well civic skills (effective public speaking, media outreach, meeting facilitation, volunteer recruitment, fundraising, etc.) and the workings of democracy, they learn them through practice, not in political science classes.

Accordingly, it behooves governments, local to national, to promote the practice of democracy among their citizens just as energetically as companies market their products to these same citizens (but without the cynical manipulation business marketing too often entails).

As sociologist Herbert Gans once said, if citizens will not come to democracy, then democracy must come to them. Democracy comes to citizens not only when governments make it easier to vote, but when governments encourage more substantial citizen engagement in the decisions that affect their lives.

There is no lack of ideas for broadening citizen engagement - from policy juries to televised democracy in many forms to fully publicly financed elections - but there has been a lack of political will, especially when so many view government as an impediment to, rather than a tool for, citizens’ development.

Perhaps the best point of departure for opening discussion about the role of government in nurturing citizens’ civic ethic is this one: Representative democracies need direct democracy to best function.

For our representatives to be accountable and responsive to citizens, citizens need to be continually engaged in the public decisions that affect their lives, regarding everything from local zoning to global security.

Practice nurtures vigilance. Otherwise, we get what we have - representatives who respond more to the engaged and well-heeled minority than to the less-engaged majority.


Paul gives DFA activists much to consider. The need to engage those different from ourselves and learn to work effectively with them. Not making the perfect the enemy of the good, as Dr. Dean has so often quoted. Being able to truly empathize with those you wish to win to your side. There are fancy words for all of these, but the simplest and best are humility, empathy, and tolerance. These are virtues we will need heaps of to make it through the next four years with our national character intact.

Ohio Voter Supression Documentary

Watch a documentary about the voter supression efforts of the GOP in Ohio. Skepticism does not survive the viewing.

Frameshop: Lessons in Framing

DemSpeak >This is a series of Kos diaries by Coturnix entitled "Learn How to Reframe GOP Spin with Precision Language". Very tasty stuff, I recommend ingesting it.

Saturday, January 01, 2005

Why Buying Local is a Political Act

I couldn't agree more with what this author says, so I chose not to change a word.


"Don't forget to cast your vote today, your community is at stake. Election Day is over, of course, but the real voting with your wallet takes place continuously. And every time you vote your dollars for chain stores, you are voting for the destruction of your community. It's that simple.

Economic forces are at work today that threaten this town, every town, in America. When you buy groceries or clothes or gasoline, you usually focus on only two questions: Which stores have the lowest prices? And which are most conveniently located? More and more of us then decide to do shopping at super-discount department stores like Wal-Mart. Whatever their virtues, however, these stores systematically suck money out of town and put traditional small retailers out of business. There are at least four compelling economic reasons to buy instead from locally owned businesses:


  • First, a locally owned business is likely to produce income, jobs, tax receipts, and charitable donations for a community over several generations. Whenever ownership coincides with the location of a business, all these transactions reinforce one another and pump up the local economic multiplier, the basic building block for community prosperity.


  • Second, local ownership minimizes the chance of calamity. Across the country, cities have seen their best local companies sell their interests to outsiders and then their hometown plants shutdown. Tragic consequences always follow. Taxpayers thrown out of work become tax-drainers through welfare and unemployment payments. When the tax base contracts, vital services like education, police, and fire must be cut. Property values plummet and, like so many steel and auto towns in the 1970s and 1980s, the community descends into an economic death spiral. Local stores have no plans to move to Malaysia.

  • A third advantage of local ownership is that once a company agrees to stay indefinitely, the community can better shape its laws and regulations to serve the local quality of life. Today, most communities are held hostage to their largest companies. Near where I live, on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, for example, Tyson and Perdue have successfully fought all legislative efforts to raise wages of their workers and to clean up the billions of pounds of chicken manure they dump into the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. They deploy one powerful argument: Regulate us and we'll move to more lax jurisdictions like Georgia or Arkansas. Locally owned companies never practice this kind of extortion. In the National Football League,all but one of the franchises are owned by a single individual, and more than a half dozen have threatened to leave town if their demands for hundreds of millions of dollars for new stadiums and other booty are not met. When Cleveland refused, Art Modell took the Browns to Baltimore. The exception is the Green Bay Packers, a nonprofit owned primarily by the citizens of Wisconsin. Local ownership effectively prevents the Packers from ever threatening to leave town. There will never be Baltimore Packers.

  • Finally, locally owned businesses are, in fact, more likely to succeed than those with absentee shareholders. In 1975 the Sperry Rand Co. decided to shut down any subsidiaries that were not achieving a 22 percent rate of return. One of its companies slated to get the axe was the Library Bureau, the principal employer of Herkimer, New York. The workers, residents, and local banks decided to execute a buyout. In its first year of operation under new management, the newly independent Library Bureau earned a 17 percent rate of return, inadequate for Sperry Rand, but more than enough for Herkimer. It continued to perform profitably for more than a decade.


The Herkimer example underscores that locally owned businesses have much more flexibility and time to become profitable. Having locally owned businesses generate a positive rate of return is far more important to the local economy than having a smaller number absentee-owned companies generating a maximum rate of return. This helps explain why college and state-government towns are among the most recessionproof in the country.

The bottom line is this: If you're hungry, choose a locally owned restaurant. If you need fresh produce, check out the farmers'market. If you're a business, buy inputs for your company from local suppliers. The real power to shape your economy lies in the hands of residents like yourself who vote daily.

As they used to say in Chicago, "vote wisely and vote often."

By Michael H. Shuman
Author, "Going Local"







DFA should stand for sustainable, local, and most importantly, democratically controlled markets. The real problem with 'Free Trade' as currently practiced is that it is achieved by removing citizens from the political process of negotiating the terms. What is achieved is efficient from a macro-economic view, but brutal and deeply anti-democratic in its effects. Local DFAs should sponsor 'Local First' campaigns. The small businessperson and local entrepreneur should be our strongest allies in rebuilding the Democratic party. They represent the pure and wholesome tradition of capitalism in our society, not the socialized merchanilists of much of the Fortune 500 who are driving the political dominance of the GOP, enabling them to sell out our nation's economic legacy to maximize their short-term profits.

Here is an example of what a local economy-friendly legislative agenda looks like from the American Independent Business Alliance.




Feeds:
RSS/Atom Feed Site Meter
Powered by Blogger