More of the same isn't what we need.

I know I'm not the first, but reading comments like those of Mr. James P. Giangobbe of Litchfield Park in the Opinion section of the Feb. 20, 2008 Arizona Republic explains the appeal of someone like Sen. Barack Obama has to large segments of the public including Democrats, Independents and Republicans. GWB has made conservative speeches and sermons for 7 years and look where it has gotten us. A war McCain wants to extend for 100 years, a federal deficit that puts generations into debt, an economy that's falling below world-class levels. We need a dramatic change and Republicans are incapable of going in any direction other than reverse.

You negative thinking, backward-driving, debt-creating, job-exporting, health care cost-raising Republicans have had your chance and you blew it on countless levels. Frankly, any change from you guys will be welcome.

Intellectual Laziness

I’m tired of this intellectually lazy “it’s the law” immigration argument. How many of us exceed the speed limit when we drive? How many of us drank a beer before we were of legal age? How many of us regularly smoked a cigarette before we were of legal age? How many of us got the wrong change at a store and kept it and felt like we were stealing from them? If you did any of these, you are as much of a "criminal" as someone who crosses the border illegally. So where are the calls for speeding roundups? Where are the Sheriff's Posse patrols for beer drinking kids? Nowhere. How is that fair or just? This is nothing more than selective enforcement of a law for purely political purposes. It won’t solve the immigration problem, it won’t improve the economy, it won’t lower taxes and it won’t lower crime rates.

Fixing immigration means changing the focus of the discussion away from enforcement and towards solutions. The Republicans don’t want that to happen because they need it as a wedge issue. The Democrats seem incapable of deciding whether they want to lead on this issue because they’ll probably come up with some plan that will get labeled as “amnesty.” There are simple ways to solve this, but as long as we discourage people from talking about solutions, we’ll likely not get past this issue for a long time.

Republicans Don't Get Economics

Robert Robb of the Arizona Republic has a column in today's paper that suggests that our Governor isn't following the right course in dealing with the surprising (surprising to whom, I've written about this coming since before the last election) reduction in tax revenues. Not that I'm disagreeing with Robb, but the bone-head tax-cuts-are-the-answer crowd have all chimed in to say in the comments section that secret to our survival are more tax cuts. This blinder mentality is what's harming Arizona and more people need to point out how stupid that notion actually is.

A poster called CooperG responded to another named JackD who said he knew what he was talking about because he (JackD) "ha(s) the mathematical background necessary to grasp the necessary concepts." I couldn't have said it better myself.

There's a joke that goes like this: what do you call someone who graduates at the bottom of his medical school class? You call him "Doctor." I would argue your understanding of the Laffer Curve has more to do with things you've learned from propaganda than reading the good Doctor Laffer's paper and understanding it.

While I won't waste my time on explaining it to you (you really don't understand it), suffice it to say that you need to pay attention to the assumptions Laffer makes. Like there is a point where tax rates reach an optimal point when increases in productivity produce equal increases in tax revenues. What you don't understand is it is a C-U-R-V-E, meaning reductions or increases in taxes will have the negative effect of either causing reductions in revenues or reductions in productivity. You Tax-Cuts-R-Us folks think you can cut taxes forever and get the same result. Hmmm, that sounds a bit like that old chesnut of doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

As for the other posters, if tax cuts are so good at increasing revenues at the state level (Laffer focused on the national economy), then how come the expected increases haven't appeared? When will it start showing up? Why are revenues down? With apologies to Ronald Reagan and Clara Peller, "Where's the beef?"

I'd bet money that every one of the people who posted messages on that web page that support tax cuts are retirement age and either live on investment income or pensions. But CooperG is correct, the Laffer Curve is a "curve" and not a flat line. Unfortunately for us, a flat line is what we'll get if we continue to listen to these legsilators who think cutting taxes is the only answer to revenue problems.

The unfortunate thing is that the nitwits in the legislature are already redirecting attention away from their failed strategies for increasing revenues at a time when we need them, to blaming it on ballot-required spending measures. How any of these so-called "friends of the taxpayer" can say that cutting revenues when we have no choice but to spend money on these things by cutting spending on things we need that are NOT ballot-required is plainly and simply reckless and irresponsible.

Arpaio Promotes Immigration Hot-line, Accomplishes Nothing

The Arizona Republic, in its editor's desire to really inform the public of important news, has published a story in today's newspaper that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has painted signs advertising his illegal immigration hot-line on trucks and vans. According to the story, he did this because "We had a problem because we were having trouble getting the number out to the public." Apparently not enough people get copies of his press releases.

So let me make sure I understand this: Sheriff Arpaio is spending taxpayer dollars on "rolling billboard" that advertise a hot-line that has a success rate of barely four percent? Out of 2,000 calls, he's arrested 85 "suspects," which means 1,915 were a waste of time of the officers he has assigned to answer the calls and chase after the leads. If I recall other reports correctly, these 85 arrests are a combination of hot-line calls and the result of other investigations. What will probably lower the number even more is the fact these are "suspects" and won't be "convicted" until they're through the court system.

Look, nobody likes it when anyone breaks the law. But for a sheriff who has over watched as the county’s murder, rape and property crime rates have increased well above the national average; sits on 45,000 un-served felony warrants; is the subject of 4,900 outstanding lawsuits he pays private lawyers millions of taxpayer dollars to defend; and spends over $500,000 a year for fancy office space in the Wells Fargo Bank building, that spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on a program that has a 4.25% success rate, it seems to me to demonstrate totally misplaced priorities and a lack of fiscal accountability.

Sheriff Arpaio is no longer entertaining or funny. He's not even successful at doing his job. He's now the joke and it's a really old joke that's getting older. It's time to retire Joe Arpaio.

Russell Pearce: Unfit for public office of any kind

According to a front page story in the East Valley Tribune, it appears that Republican Representative Russell Pearce (LD-19) seems unwilling to let voters have an unaffected vote in their opinion of him. A Republican web site had posted a poll asking which candidate GOP voters preferred for CD-5; Jeff Flake or Russell Pearce. Upon learning he was behind, Pearce sent an email to a "couple" of his supporters (more likely mailing lists) with this subject: "I am behind in the poll," followed by detailed instructions on how to cheat the poll and roll up his numbers. According to the Tribune story, he instructed recipients to "Pass this to people you trust," an obvious recognition that this was not an honest way to participate in an opinion poll. For some reason it took Pearce three hours to realize he "made a mistake." Gee, I would have thought that notion should have crossed his mind at the beginning, but it didn't. Pearce then sent another email asking folks to ignore the poll. Unfortunately (or fortunately, in our view) for Mr. Pearce, that damage has been done.

There appears with Mr. Pearce an uncanny ability to not think, shoot first and apologize later. Voters may recall last year when Mr. Pearce forwarded an email containing quotes from the Neo-Nazi National Socialist Alliance to his supporters and then sending a follow-up email saying it was a mistake. His excuse was "he didn't read it thoroughly." Some people question Pearce's naiveté and there is recent evidence that his connections to extremist groups are more than meets the eye. Now Pearce plainly demonstrates that when he doesn't like public opinion, he drafts his "supporters" to "fix" the election. Is this really the type of person we want in --any-- elected office? Is Russell Pearce the type of representative we want in Congress? Does this demonstrate a person of integrity? Does this show a willingness of Russell Pearce to accept opinions of him that are not to his liking? No, it does not. This plainly shows that Russell Pearce has neither the temperment, the integrity nor the respect for the voters to be an elected public servant.

Attempting to fix an election or a poll is as undemocratic and unpatriotic and is unimmaginable and unforgivable for any public servant. Russell Pearce has demonstrated he is clearly unfit for public office.

Hey, Hey. Ho, ho. Joe Arpaio has got to go.

Check out the East Valley Tribune's article "Seriff's office stars in TV cop comedy show pilot." The pilot, prepared for Fox TV (who else?) "is considering a comedic reality cop show whose pilot episode starred the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office." It seems that the criminals in Sheriff Arpaio's world, get to keep the prizes that lure them to jail. No, I'm not kidding!

Let me get this straight, "America's Toughest Sheriff" is "starring" in a "comedy pilot" where at the end of the day the "criminals keep the prizes?" There are over 45,000 unserved felony warrants and Arpaio thinks the only way to capture them is to reward them?

Crime is up in Maricopa County under his watch. Meth use is up under his watch. Auto theft is up under his watch. Property crime is up under his watch. His famous illegal immigrant hot line has a success rate of less than one percent and costs taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. His lawsuit losses that are paid for by the taxpayers are close to $20,000,000. His solution: he wants to be on a comedy show! Who's the joke on? The voters? Seems like it to me.

Arpaio's past being entertaining. We need a sheriff who actually fights crime, not one that supports making it profitable for criminals. Hey, hey. Ho, ho. Joe Arpaio has got to go.

Arizona Lax on Charter Schools? This Is News?

The Arizona Republic in today's (9/2/2007) paper has an article pointing out that charter schools are held to lesser account when it comes to how they handle taxpayer money. Well, duh. This is news? Apparently to the Republic. Where have they been? The article reports there have been examples of this going back years. What have they been doing? What have the Republican Legislators who own, operate or lobby for Charter Schools been doing? Opps, silly question. They've been lining their pockets with taxpayer money while making it look like they are for improving education. What was I thinking?

Charter schools in Arizona are nothing more than a way to subsidize private corporations and politician's efforts to use taxpayer money to undermine public education. The reason there are a lot of reports stating charter schools are deficient is because they ARE deficient. Anyone can cherry-pick one kid or one school, but overall, charters cannot compete with public schools.

Has the notion of competition worked? Yes, but only in the sense that someone is watching and waiting for educational systems to do better. However, at the end of the day public schools in Arizona are producing better educated children than charter schools. The numbers are out there. Go look at them. It's true! But here's a dirty secret: if you're an underperforming kid at a charter school, they'll kick you back into the public system so they look better. Boy's it's great to see how interested they are in each child, isn't it?

What the problem few people here recognize is Arizona --still-- ranks last in education. So arguments about saving money are assinine when our kids are not able to compete with children from other states or countries. THAT is what gets lost in this public vs. charter debate.

I will also point out that every other state in the country labels charter schools as an EXPERIMENT--except Arizona, where elected officials own or manage charter schools. There should be plenty of outrage about that, but why look at that issue when you should be looking at this shiny ball I have in my other hand. The PBS program NOW did an expose on charter schools in New Orleans and they're attrocious. In fact, one of the charter operators there that has been kicked out runs charters here. Where's the story on that?

People need to get their heads out of their (inappropriate term) and look at education as a way to prepare our kids for the future, not how can we give them the minimum of training at the lowest cost. It's not our future, it's theirs.

The real impact of 'universal' care is B.S.

Reading “The real impact of ‘universal’ care,” (East Valley Tribune, 8/19/07 pg. F3) I’m not sure if the same Dr. Marc J. Rosen who wrote the first three-quarters is the same person who wrote the conclusion. In any case, the editorial board should have given Rosen a better lead.

Cherry-picking problems with universal care does nothing to address this simple fact: people in countries with universal care are healthier than we are. Does it matter that “elective” hip replacements are limited in Canada? Not when those who need them for non-elective reasons can get them whenever they need them. This is an important distinction you will never hear universal care opponents mention in public.

Although I am certain Dr. Rosen wants better health care for his patients, he spends time in his op-ed worrying whether the “multi-billion-dollar health insurance industry will survive.” Not that I understand the link between their survival and the birth of IBM or the implied link between universal care and Nazi Germany. But why worry whether insurance will find something else to insure against? Somehow I think they'll find something. So much for that conservative belief in a “free-market” allowing firms to live or die based on conditions of the day.

Physicist Thomas Kuhn wrote in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” that significant and meaningful change in just about anything originates as the result of crisis and usually comes from people who do not buy into the majority way of thinking. Other countries have thought outside of the box and have determined that universal care makes more sense and their citizens are healthier and happier as a result. The reason folks like Dr. Rosen don’t get it is because their paycheck depends on them –not-- getting it. At least he admits it while, at the same time, complaining about it.

Prop. 13 Nonsense

Bob Schuster is an editor for the Arizona Republic in the east valley. He's arguing in support of those crazies who think Arizona is California and therefore believe we need a Prop. 13 tax cut like California. He argues with one of the posters that people who want these cuts are simple folks who don't want the big bad government taking their money. The poster, CooperG, argues this:

Yeah, they are dangerous because the people behind it know no limits and have no concept of how much it costs to do things. They copy-cat California, which ain't Arizona. Maybe you can tell me exactly how Arizona's economy and California's are exactly the same. Betcha can't do it. Why can't rates go down? The Republicans control when that could happen, but they won't because they need the issue to sell to people who don't know any better and buy into bumper-sticker arguments. How is that good public policy?

As for Schuster's belief that all government is permitted to do is "protect your rights," I can't believe how naive that is. I know a very small minority of Arizonans buy into that narrow Libertarian opinion, but as an editor, I would think you have a better sense of history and the law. Did we somehow skip directly from the writing of the Constitution to 2007? Some pretty important stuff happened in those intervening years. I, for one, am tired of this ideological nonsense. Where has it gotten us? We’re last in education and tops in crime. We are near the bottom in health care and tops in Meth abuse. We have "America's Toughest Sheriff," but there are 45,000 felony warrants outstanding. Solutions to problems can't be purchased at Wal-Mart yet that’s what it seems these people want. How totally irresponsible can they get?

Especially in light of this:

http://knowledge.wpcarey.asu.edu/index.cfm?fa=viewArticle&ID=1421

Here’s a quote: While taxes and government spending in Arizona are often thought to be high, the state actually ranks last in state and local government spending per capita. And the state actually makes out well on federal money invested in the state vs. taxes paid. For every dollar in federal taxes paid in the state, the federal government returns $1.30 in spending.

Ya know, I have to agree with him.

What Arpaio Wants Us To Forget - He's a Failure

It's comical that Sheriff Arpaio is telling us that "everyone forgets" (Critics of illegal immigration-tips hotline forgot they can't beat Arpaio) He wants us to forget the fact that his illegal immigration hotline has a .7 percent success rate. He wants us to forget the concept of "return on investment" by ignoring the fact that less than one out of 137 calls to the hotline leads to an arrest. Couldn't these officers' time be used more effectively? Couldn’t the money be used for something with a better record of reducing crime?

According to the FBI, serious crime has increased in Maricopa County every year Arpaio has been in office. Maybe that's why Arpaio wants us to forget the 45,000 outstanding felony arrest warrants he has failed to serve.

Hate crime is up in Maricopa County. Sheriff Arpaio should remind us how to reach his hate crime hotline phone number—except he doesn't have one. Just get those illegals, Sheriff.

Arpaio is great at turning any criticism of his failures into a criticism of the people pointing them out. But that doesn't lead to effective law enforcement. Arpaio wants us to forget his failures. That's the whole idea.

Making Flippy-Floppy

Today's Washington Post carries an article telling us our President is thinking about sending up to Congress a corporate tax cut bill to Congress because he wants to make U.S. corporations more competitive in the global market (Bush May Try to Cut Corporate Tax Rates). Here are some of the reader's comments:

"I am bending over. Please, please someone kick me in the a$$ for voting for this dummy. Twice. Arrgggghhhhhhhhh!"

"OK he was weird then he was crazy then he was bonkers and now he's just sick."

"How can anybody still think he's good for this country? Seriously? Can we have THEM checked for mental illness?"

I don't know why people are so critical of the president: he has rung up the largest deficit in history; he’s in denial in Iraq; still can't find Osama; instituted the worst senior drug program imaginable; sat back and watched during the largest increases in medical costs in history; exported American jobs to Asia (can't keep them in Mexico anymore); and now he thinks tax rates are the reason U.S. corporations are not competitive? What'd you expect him to think? When will you people ever learn?

But seriously, I can't think of a more Republican really dumb idea than to think corporate tax rates in this country make them less competitive. How about equal prices? How about tariff increases? How about instituting other policies that encourage these U.S. businesses to reopen manufacturing plants here and pay American workers living wages? Ooops, there I go being reasonable again.

The rock band Talking Heads had a song called "Making Flippy-Floppy," that includes this lyric:

I can't believe it
And people are strange
Our president's crazy
Did you hear what he said
Business and pleasure
Lie right to your face
Divide it in sections
And then give it away

Need I say more?

Update on Conservative Post Stating More Voting Is Bad

Just to let folks know, I posted a response to Red State Arizona's brain-dead belief that if more people voted, they'd elect more "liberals" and that the Arizona Advocacy Network is "radical left activist" for wanting to make sure people who are eligible to vote, can vote.

Needless to say, the moderator didn't see fit to post my reply--at least not almost 24 hours later.

Conservatives just can't handle the truth.

Conservative Blog Says More People Voting Is Bad

The right-wing conservative blog "Red State Arizona" seems to like casting stones to make its readers feel better. Besides spreading lies about the supposed fact there is voter fraud in Arizona (there isn't), we're told that if you want to make sure that legal U.S. citizens who reside in Arizona can exercise their right to vote, you must be a "radical left activist." According to this guy:

"AZ Advocacy Network's goal is to register as many people to vote as possible, in fact they'd love to make voting a requirement, because it would benefit liberals. Since conservatives are more likely than Dems to make the effort to vote on their own initiative, groups like this know the surefire way to pick up more liberal votes is to practically require people to vote, because that drags in the people who don't care - who will vote liberal. "If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul.'"

Uh, yeah. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with b.s. Who knows where he gets this claptrap from, but there's no truth to any of it. Of course, when did the truth matter to conservative Republicans in Arizona?

I see nothing "radical left activist" about trying to make sure that legal and qualified Arizona residents are able to exercise their Constitutional right to vote by making sure the law (Prop 200) is followed properly and people get the chance to provide the proper identification. Why is this guy opposed to legal residents exercising their right to vote? Oh, that's right, conservatives think if more people register, they'll vote "liberal."

As for registering illegal immigrants, the Maricopa County Attorney, the Secretary of State and the Maricopa County Recorder have stated in response to the legal discovery process they have no proof (as in zero) that any illegal immigrant has ever attempted to register to vote or has attempted to vote in Arizona. If they’re lying and you know it, they have committed perjury. If you have any proof, maybe some Republican can explain why the senior law enforcement and election officials in the state don’t know about it.

As for other cases of voter fraud, I challenge conservatives to please cite a single case in the state of Arizona that has been prosecuted in the last 10 years that has (a) been brought to trial or (b) resulted in a conviction or guilty plea. That really hot place will freeze over before you can come up with a single example.

Since there is no proof of voter fraud in Arizona or illegals attempting to vote in Arizona, I think conservatives should be cheering the Arizona Advocacy Network for looking out for and protecting Arizona citizen's Constitutional right to vote. Lord knows no group from the "radical right" thinks voting is worth fighting for. As the author of Red State Arizona clearly states, Republicans are plainly more concerned with stopping it.

More Tax Cut Lunacy - Arizona is California

We have folks here in Arizona who seem to think Proposition 13 in California should be replicated here because we have "the same problems" California did. Listen to them and they'll refer you to this Harold Jarvis cult-of-personality web site that attempts to make the case that Prop 13 worked wonders for California homeowners who were going to lose their homes due to high property tax rates.

Sorry, but I can't find a single measure where Arizona is anything like California--except maybe because we have more of them moving here with the profits from the sale of their home in California. So how can we have the same problems?

These Arizonans who call themselves "Friends of the Taxpayer" will tell you that our tax rates are, to quote intellectual wannabe Sen. Thayer Verschoor (R-22) "extraordinarily high." People will lose their homes, these folks say, because their property tax assessments will bankrupt them and because of this we need to roll back property rates --not assessments-- to 2001 levels. Why 2001? I dunno, cause that was when 9/11 happened? Actually,there is no reason other than that was before the real estate boom took hold in Arizona.

Never mind foreclosures are through the roof, driving home values down, and hence property assessment rates. Never mind that there is an average sell time of existing homes of 280 days, which is driving down rates and hence assessments. Never mind that credit is tightening up, which will make it harder for people to qualify for loans, which will drive down prices and hence assessments. Never mind the simple fact that Republicans control the County Assessors offices in this state and they set the rates and the Republican legislators write the rules regarding property assessments. So instead of holding them accountable, they'd rather run these red herrings up the flagpole so people who believe the B.S. this is rate problem when it isn't. When assessments go down, the problem goes away.

As for their other argument about high rates, here's the truth: Arizona's tax rates are in the bottom third of those in the U.S. Look at www.taxfoundation.org. Bottom third equals "high taxes?" Are they high? Too high for who? Them, obviously? Well some of us like police and fire protection. Some of us like bridges that don't fall out of the sky. Some of us want our kids educated at schools ranked higher than last in the nation. Apparently though, not these folks.

These folks think the increased revenues are due to high tax rates! Um, hello, it's because more people are paying into the system--that kind of comes with the territory of being the fastest growing state in the country. More people...more workers...more tax revenue. Can't make it any easier for you. If you don't get that, you'll never get it. Think lower taxes are good? tell that to Mesa police and fire officers. Tell that to Mesa school children. Tell that to people who have to drive on Mesa's roads. Wow, just what we need--to be just like Mesa.

More Philosophical Tax Bullshit

I'm really getting annoyed with these ideological reporters who try to push theory on people as if it were fact. What's worse is reporters who support bad public policy either overtly or through the simple fact they give them column inches. I rarely agree with the Republic's Robert Robb and today is no exception. Today, he's talking about the two groups who are pushing California-style Propostion 13 initiatives here in Arizona in a column titled "Efforts to limit property taxes taking shape.

Gee Robert, don't you read the paper? Didn't you read the story about the bridge that fell into the Mississippi River? Didn't you read about the number of bridges and other public infrastructure that is in bad shape and need repair? Didn't you read how many bridges in Arizona are rated as unsafe as the I-35W Bridge? How are we going to fix these things if cheapskates with narrow, unrealistic views of revenue and spending keep cutting the funds to fix things out from under us? Where are these dollars going to come from? Didn't you read about the story about foreclosures? How about the story on another large mortgage lender going out of business? Do people need to die in Arizona to wake you up? What are the sponsors of these propositions thinking? Are they blind, stupid or both?

As for business taxes, Robb overstates the problem. According to the Tax Foundation, Arizona's overall business tax climate is among the best in the country. Look it up. But the reason we have higher property tax rates for business is other potential revenue streams are too small or non-existent or cannot be tapped because we have ideological Neanderthals with blinders on setting tax policy. Anyone with a clue will see that cutting taxes on corporations means taxes will be raised elsewhere (like citizens) because at the end of the day, someone has to repair the bridges. Arizona is not a high-tax state and it's flat false to claim it is. Let's stop being ideological and start being practical for a change.

Who really runs Arizona?

Jan Brewer, our Secretary of State, has released new voter registration totals that cover April-June of 2007. It shows the continued slide in the percentage of Arizonans aligning with the Republican Party. but also the shows the growth in the Democratic and "other" registrations. The significant increase over the years in "other" voters has been touched upon in this space before, but to say neither major party is making great strides in convincing voters theirs is the party to choose would be pretty accurate and is likely something lost only on the Republican side of things. The Democrats recognize this and are working on it. That they outpaced Republican registration for the second quarter in a row hopefully demonstrates that something's working.

Here's today's thought:

With Libertarians making up such a small percentage of the number of registered voters, how is it then that the Libertarian viewpoint seems to dominate political discourse in Arizona? Many Republicans claim libertarian views and reporters such as the Arizona Republic's Robert Robb and the entire East Valley Tribune promote it persistently. Are these Republicans really Libertarians but can't be honest enough to admit it and change their voter registrations? Wouldn't that make them Republicans in name only (RINOs)?

Does this mean our state is really being run by a group of people that makes up seven-tenths of one percent of the total number of voters in the state? Is this because they know if they show their true colors they won’t get elected? Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture? How is this a good thing?

Conservatives Still Clueless on Iraq

Why do the Phoenix area dailies have to print letters from boneheads on Saturday morning? Can't they print reasonable things to make people look at the issues from a practical standpoint? Why do they have to print letters like the one in today's Arizona Republic they titled "A few questions on liberals' war policy," (21 July 2007)?

If I had to guess, since the author lives in Peoria, he's somewhere in his 70's and thinks of military operations in an Eisenhower and McArthur context. This is the same age group as Rumsfeld and while they had a military strategy that worked 60 years ago, warfare against the U.S. has changed signficantly since then and they haven't kept up. This is a problem for them and for us.

As usual, conservatives miss the freaking point of terrorism and why traditional military operations do little more than create more sympathizers. Think about it, anyone who had any money or skills bailed out of Iraq right after the "end of military operations." All that's left are those who have to stay there. Are they the educated folks? Nope, they're the uneducated ones. They're the ones who are more succeptable to catapulted propaganda (kinda like here). They react emotionally rather than rationally (kinda like here). Therefore, when someone in their mosque gets them wound up with a speech/sermon, they go out in the streets and do things that are not in their best interests (kinda like here).

There's also the simple fact conservatives--still-- know little about the Arab culture, even after all of this time. When you kill someone in an Arab's family in a war, they don't chalk it up to bad luck. They look at the circumstance. If they believe their family member should not have been killed, whoever did the killing has an enemy not just for this generation, but for generations to come. They do not forget. So the "mistakes" we've made under GWB will haunt us for decades. If you don't think that doesn't feed into support for terrorism or guerilla attacks against our soldiers, you're blind AND stupid.

The point is Al-Queda will be a problem as long as we continue this boneheaded, testosterone-driven policy of "we won the war, you lost so get over it" military policy. It has never worked there before and it won't work here. So redeployment is a simple acknowledgment that doing something over and over and not getting the expected result isn't working.

These old guys who think the Middle East is like WWII are simply wrong. Bush's strategy was doomed from the start and, if you remember, Bush had to fire enough Generals until he could find some who would agree with him. If that wasn't a clue we were in trouble, I don't know what is. But until we deal with the many problems our Bush family "victories" are causing over there, we will always have a terrorist threat against our country. Forcing the Iraq government to take control of the situation by redeploying our forces to hunt Bin Laden is a fine start.

Stupid "It's My Money" Tax Argument

I'm really getting tired of the silly argument these anti-everything (no money for schools, no money for health care, no money for road) types keep hyping that money we pay in taxes is somehow still "their" or "my" money. The Arizona Republic has fired up this quasi-debate again because they've printed a number of letters to the editor about in recent days. Here's my take.

There is a difference between "our" money and "my" money. Around here, some confuse the "our" to mean "my" because they only want federal and state dollars spent on things that only benefit them, personally. How is that "of, by and for the people?"

Groups that support no funds for schools, roads, public protection, and ridiculous notions like "only the things the founding fathers knew about in 1776 should be supported today," etc. are not "pro-taxpayer." They are anti-taxpayer, anti-civilization and anti-progress. Roads cost money. Schools cost money. Border protection costs money. If we want those things, we need to pay for it.

Should we be careful how we spend it? Sure. Should be looking for deep discounts or government on the cheap? You get what you pay for--look at Mesa. But the dirty truth the anti-everything crowd wants you to ignore is that we are all in this together and solving problems require all of us to pitch in and be smart about it.

Remember "United we stand, divided we fall?" The anti-everything crowd wants us divided. Some patriots they are.

E.J. Montini and Supporting our Soldiers

E.J. Montini writes today about "Our failure to deploy support for troops. He got a call from a woman who was concerned about the lack of support for a bill that would limit the amount of time between deployments of military personnel. Seems the woman wants a little "home time" for her husband. Unfortunately, a load of Republicans voted against Senator Webb's bill because "it would interfere with the work of the military commanders."

I have friends who have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan multiple times and the toll on their families is tremendous. I'm sure there thousands of marriages and long-term relationships have been destroyed by these deployments, but hey, “they did volunteer.”

Yeah, but they didn't volunteer for this. Many joined the Guard or Reserves long before 9/11 and before the run-up to the war. They did it to bring some extra money into the household or help pay for college (you know, "Be all you can be?"). They didn’t sign up to end their marriage, come home disabled, or worse, dead.

The woman is right; we don't spend enough time thinking about the actual burden on the soldiers. But how are we expected to care about them when we're not allowed to see their funerals or their flag-draped coffins? But it's not about the men and women in uniform. It's about rationalization. These military commanders are given their orders by politicians who wouldn't recognize a plan for success if it bit them. We're so caught up with winning we're unable to see what we're losing: military families, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters.

Iraq is a C.F. and there are few in the military that have been over there that would tell you otherwise privately. Most of them don’t say anything for the same reason this woman’s husband won’t: he doesn’t want to sound like he’s complaining. But this, too, is part of the problem: don’t say what you think because those with narrow views or small minds will loudly paint you into a corner as being non-supportive. Sorry, if Bush had a clue or a plan, we wouldn’t be having this discussion in the first place.

Wannabe Intellectual Criticizes Smart People

Go check out today's E.V. Tribune. There's an op-ed by a guy named Rich Shields (Intellectuals Not Smartest Folks In Room) who attempts to make the truly tired argument that conservatives are smarter than "intellectual liberals." First of all, that's preposterous because there is no such thing as an "intellectual conservative," especially this guy.

That being said, it is entertaining to see someone who teaches economics at the DeVry Institute's Keller School of Management (only accredited though something close to osmosis) lecturing people who teach at real colleges and universities about not being as smart as conservatives. One must have a certain amount of chutzpah to criticize them for the exact thing he is asking the reader to do: believe he is an authority on anything.

If you want examples of Peter Pan and Neverland, you don’t have to look much further than Mr. Shields beloved conservatives. Only people in Neverland think the massive Republican federal deficit is a good thing, that we’re winning the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, or that Arizona’s last-place ranking in Education is an achievement.

As for the argument that conservatives see government as “an institution in the pursuit of self-interest,” I guess they would know. All one has to do is read the paper about folks like Republican Congressman Rick Renzi who appears to have used his authority to broker a sweet land swap deal or neocon Paul Wolfowitz breaking ethics rules to give his girlfriend a big raise, or Dick Cheney giving no-bid billion dollar contracts to his former firm Halliburton. Sounds rather self-serving to me, Rich. Give me people who can think any day.