Tucson Sammy

I am amazed, though I suppose I should not be, that the story of Missouri prosecutors and sheriffs using their positions to advance the Obama campaign has had so little coverage outside the blogosphere. This is the most significant story regarding Obama, and his campaign, to date.

Youtube video of original news broadcast – click to watch!

Who would have thought that, in our lifetime, would openly take sides in a campaign as public officials?

Imagine if Governor Napolitano was up for re-election, and the head of the Arizona National Guard said, “We, and the people of Arizona, want this campaign to be about issues. If we see anyone lying about Governor Napolitano, or engaging in personal attacks, we’ll do what we can to prevent that – whether the attacks come from the a campaign, or 527’s. We are deploying assets to Phoenix, Tucson, and Flagstaff to make sure these lies and personal attacks do not go unanswered.”

I would hope that we would all say, “How dare you! How dare you take sides in a political campaign as members of the military! How dare you engage in intimidation of those whom your are supposed to be serving! And who the heck is the National Guard to judge the veracity of campaign commercials!”

Why are these questions not being asked of those prosecutors and sheriffs in Missouri?
According to the news report, they were recruited by the Obama campaign. What do you suppose these whores were promised – a staff position at the White House? A lawyer job at the Department of Justice? Maybe some cushy regional FEMA Director position?

The important thing, at this point, is the realization that an Obama administration will differ little from the thug machine politics of Chicago, where Obama learned the trade. Treat him like any other politician – do not listen to what he says, look at what he does.

Unity? Liberty? Prosperity? – not things we are likely to see in an Obama administration. Think about that when you vote.

Gee, do you think that these “Truth Squad” folks will adopt uniforms? If they do, will they be black like SWAT teams, or maybe just brown shirts like AmeriCorp?

There has been ongoing controversy over filtering online pornography at the Pima County Public Library. It has become a campaign issue.

Ray Carroll has led the fight in favor of filtering pornographic material. Most of the other county supervisors demur, noting first amendment concerns, and the imperfection of filtering technology.

The concern, of course, is the inevitability of small children walking by the computer bank while young adult males are viewing, well, you can imagine…then again, maybe you can’t imagine.

This porn problem is really a symptom of the public library concept, a concept originally put forth by the great industrialist, Andrew Carnegie.

In the early 1900’s Carnegie turned his focus from steel and other concerns to philanthropy. He envisioned community facilities that were a combination of free libraries and community meeting places. He provided startup money while the local government committed to providing the real estate and ongoing expenses. This was the original “public/private partnership.” He started over three thousand of these facilities across the English-speaking world.

We all find Carnegie’s vision cool, and these public libraries have enriched countless communities. The problem is, that as government entities, they try to be all things to all the people in the community. There is a touch of arrogant paternalism in the original vision that continues today.

Were libraries private businesses that had to respond to the discipline of the markets, they would identify specific information markets, and succeed or fail by how well they served them. If you are funded directly by those you serve, you keep them happy. This is called the discipline of the market.

If your funding does not come directly from those you serve, then you do not see a problem with little kids watching an erotomaniac get all jacked up over an online video. You are all things to all people.

Imagine little Susie coming home and her mom asking, “What did you learn at the Library today?”

Susie says, I learned about trains and highways, and I learned how to spell “transportation”.

“That’s wonderful honey!” says mom.

Susie adds, “Mommy?”

“Yes dear,” replies mom.

“What’s an Asian MILF creampie?”

Interestingly, to my knowledge, no one is pushing for an adult section of the library. It might solve the problem, but then the library would admittedly become purveyors of porn, not simply the homogenized source of all information.

In the end, technology and the private sector will make public libraries irrelevant. Online libraries, computers, and electronic readers will bring the information to the citizen – the citizen will no longer have to go to the information.

Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon.com, Has his own vision. He’s sees the decline of the “dead tree world” of books. Last year he introduced the Kindle electronic reading device.

Among other things, the Kindle allows the reader to download books and periodicals directly to the device via the cell phone network. It is about the size of a trade paperback, and the screen does not glow. It uses “electronic ink” technology that looks like a printed page.

With this move, Bezos is making a down payment on the future of his book business, and keeping it on the cutting edge – good for him! More importantly, he is staying in the private sector, subjecting himself to market discipline – good for us!

It is hard to imagine Jeff Bezos being blasé about mixing together Dick and Jane stories with hardcore pornography. He is accountable to his customers in a very direct, dollars and cents way.

Hopefully, Jeff Bezos will stay a businessman and not become a philanthropist. We will all be better served in the long run.

Let us say that you vote very election. You consider it a civic duty. During this election cycle, you have been paying more attention, and want to become more involved by helping your favorite candidate financially.

Nice idea, but don’t bother because you can’t.

“Can’t what, send him a check?” you might ask.

“No,” I would reply, “you can’t help him.”

“How does that work?” you say.

Here’s how: say you want to give a hundred bucks to your guy in your local legislative district. Well, if he has met the arbitrary limit set by the state, the state will give a hundred bucks to each of the competing candidates, thereby neutralizing your help… you know, to make it fair.

“But my guy is not participating in Clean Elections!” you add.

“Yeah, that’s why he can raise the extra money, but his participating opponents get the match. Like it or not, everyone participates, though not everyone signs up,” I explain with a sigh.

At this point you shake your fist and scream, “What the heck is fair about denying me the ability to help my candidate!?!”

Welcome to the whacky world of “Arizona Clean Elections.” That’s right, the act that was designed to increase political participation, increase the number of candidates, and reduce the incumbent re-election rate, actually does none of those things. In fact, it often makes matters worse.

It is an atrociously bad law. Not only does it fail to fulfill the promises of its creators, it also removes an important tool with which the people influence their elected representatives.

There are three ways with which we, the people, do that – voting, campaign financing, and petitioning (letters, phone calls, etc.). The vote is clearly the most powerful. With it, we can “throw the bums out.” Campaign financing is next, it relates to the vote so it is right up there in significance. Once the critter is in there, we can communicate praise or displeasure, the old carrot and stick, which might spook him during and election year.

Arizona Clean Elections removes direct constituent influence over campaign financing. That means that the candidate gets the money, the “mother’s milk of politics”, not by pleasing his constituents, but by pleasing the some state employed bureaucrat.

Look, I know that at this point, you figure the political game is rigged, and you want to forget about it and go back to playing Halo or Grand Theft Auto, but don’t. There is hope.

Clint Bollick, up there at the Goldwater Institute, has filed suit on behalf of an angry mob of candidates who are getting hosed by this thing. He’s arguing that preventing people from supporting their candidates interferes with their free speech rights.

Now here’s the best part: there is United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) case law that supports the claim! The case is Davis vs. F.E.C., you can look it up. It should be a slam-dunk for Clint.

“But why,” you ask, “if it doesn’t work and creates problems, don’t they just repeal the bad law?”

My friend, you have much to learn about politics. Remember, things are not always as they appear. Perhaps it never was about increased participation, more candidates, and all that crap. Maybe it has always been about control, about shifting power from the people to the state.

If that is the case, then it appears to be working just fine.