Tucson Sammy

Recently, I was chatting about local politics with a friend and he said that a couple of members of the Tucson City Council were to speak at the upcoming May Day rally. For those of you who do not know, May Day (the first day in May), also known as International Workers Day, is the big commie holiday of the year. I thought, “A commie rally, right here in River City!” and marked my calendar, determined to attend.

At the last minute, I invited an amateur photographer friend named Eric to come along. I thought that my being accompanied by a guy with a big fancy camera would make me look like some kind of journalist, and he would get a chance to shoot people – photographically speaking. I picked him up on the morning of May the first, and after breakfast, went to the Southgate Shopping Plaza where the commies were gathering for the parade.

The gathering was actually just south of Southgate. There was a small crowd milling about before a podium from which impassioned speeches, maybe rants (it was hard to tell, most of it was in Spanish) were being delivered.

I suppose I’m showing my age when I say that I was a little surprised to see no hammers and sickles, red stars, or pictures of Marx and Lenin.

In their place, were a few Obama tee shirts, and a large banner proclaiming “Obama We Trust in You, Si Se Puede!” The phrase “Si Se Puede!” (Yes We Can!) was originally a slogan of the United Farm Workers, a labor union formed by Cesar Chavez and Delores Huerta. The Obama campaign adopted the slogan as its own for the purpose, we can assume, of showing solidarity with a “community organizer” of an earlier generation, and securing the lefty Latino vote.

I saw a few college-aged kids in SEIU tee shirts. The SEIU (Service Employees International Union) was formed, as I recall, because the AFL-CIO was not doing enough to advocate leftist politics. They focus, as the name suggests, on representing service industry workers – a labor sector generally ignored by older, more mainstream unions.

There were a few guys dressed up in spectacular Aztec costumes. They wore huge plumed headdresses, and seashells around their ankles. They were quite striking and handsome.

Of course, there was a banner comparing Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to Nazis.

They formed a parade line, and moved north on Sixth Avenue, the right lane of which was cordoned off for the marchers. Groups within the parade were chanting different slogans.

The parade’s destination was Armory Park. Eric and I drove to the spot before the parade arrived. The entire park was surrounded with that plastic net barrier material with entrances at the corners.

As we entered, I was approached by a smiling woman with a clipboard who, with a happy lilting voice, invited me to sign a petition. I was really focused on observation that day, and did not want to deal with the relative merits of this or that petition. I told her that I was not registered to vote (I lied). She said, “Oh that’s O.K., you don’t have to be.” I asked about what the petition was. She replied, “We just want to spank Joe Arpaio.” I said, “I really would prefer not to, but thank you.” Suddenly, her face went stern. She glared at me as if to disrupt my cell structure with the energy emanating from her expression. I quickly began to walk away, figuring that for every three feet of distance I put between us would reduce by half the force of her glare weapon.

We walked to the corner at which the parade was to arrive. It was here that I suffered two embarrassments.

First, I looked at a large memorial to the soldiers of the Spanish-American War. It featured a life-size statue of a soldier from the period, and listed the different theaters of battle in the war, one of which was Puerto Rico. It was spelled “Porto Rico”. We were not alone in noticing the gaffe.

Next, were the protesters. Now, I always roll my eyes when someone describes those who have reservations about open borders as “toothless white guys in camouflage clothing.” Well, there were a few protesters, and as you might have guessed by now, there was a guy with the megaphone who was a toothless white guy dressed in military clothing complete with booney hat – O.K., I don’t know if he was actually toothless, in fact he probably wasn’t because his diction was excellent, but why present yourself that way?

Frankly, I find it really counter productive for fewer than half a dozen angry people to harass a bunch of commies celebrating their holiday. It just reinforces the stereotype with the young people there who no doubt were not impressed by the sign saying, “Go Home and Un-F*** Mexico.”

That sign was particularly aggravating because there is an underlying point that was obscured by its quite vulgar and offensive nature. If all the ambitious, hardworking risk takers abandon Mexico to find work abroad, how will the country be maintained? As Thomas P.M. Barnett said, “The rich want protection from the poor, the poor want protection from their condition, but the middle class wants protection from the future.” It is this concern for the future that gives a society stability and continuity from generation to generation. Mexico will become a failed state if the people who could be building her middle class abandon her instead.

Anyway, after the parade arrived, everyone filled the park. There was a stage set up with a band. A speaker went the microphone and, after doing the usual greetings to the attendees, announced that there would be no speakers, just a fun party. She did make a point of thanking councilmen Regina Romero and Nina Trasoff for all their help in supporting the event.

We wandered around looking at the tables and booths. Many groups were represented including Comite de Derechos Humanos, Democrat Party recruiting, ACORN, and CPUSA (Communist Party USA). The live music was great, and many of the young people were dancing.

The most telling image was of the CPUSA table, compared to the ACORN booth next to it. The CPUSA table consisted of a folding table with a few pamphlets, a hand made sign, and an old geezer in a ball cap to answer questions. The ACORN booth had big banners saying “Health Care Can’t Wait”, and “Foreclosure Free Zone”. There were three people man the large sized booth answering questions and selling tee shirts.

CPUSA has pretty much disappeared as a political force in America. It’s a throwback to the days when the left thought it could argue it’s case honestly, above board, and win. That does not work, and the geezer obviously did not get the memo.

The modern approach is to infect and commandeer disaffected groups whose generally noble causes they transform into anti-American weapons. In that way, they can push the agenda while maintaining an innocent front. This is the future of the movement. If you want examples of groups who are in the sway of the far left, you need look no farther than the groups who came to celebrate this May Day.

What can we do about this threat? First, we must be quick to draw attention to deception and dishonesty (remember, they lose when they are honest), then we must stop tax money from going to support their political activities – this is a mater of principle and applies to all, not just the commies. Finally, we vote out of office any elected official who supports them.

As luck would have it, both Regina Romero and Nina Trasoff are up for re-election this fall, so the last part is easy.

At the national level, the Republicans are wandering around shell-shocked in the wilderness, while the Democrats are lookin’ fly and rollin’ phat.

Many Republicans, who dare to look at the future, see a glimmer of hope in 2010. They know that, historically speaking, the mid-term elections usually result in electoral advances for the party that is out of power – if ever a party was out of power, it is certainly today’s Republican Party. Between 1946 and 1996, the president’s party suffered an average loss of about 24 seats in midterm elections, according to the book The American Congress, by Steven S. Smith, Jason M. Roberts, and Ryan J. Vander Wielen. The authors went on to state that the only time this does not happen is when the president’s approval rating is very high.

President Obama’s approval rating is still high, but so are the people’s expectations for his presidency. If, in two years, the economy has not recovered dramatically, unemployment is high, or the voters generally feel that their desires have not been fulfilled; they maybe inclined to make it a good year for Republicans. Two years is a long time in politics.

What the Republicans need are a few good candidates, and campaign organizations. Perhaps there will be some past successes from which they could glean ideas.

Let us now go back in time from 2010 to 2009 (that would be now), and narrow our focus from the nation to Tucson (that would be here). We may have here today a microcosm of the national scene in 2010.

While the big change on the national scene was the last election in which Democrat Barack Obama won the presidency, and Democrats strengthened their hold on Congress. The big change here occurred in 2005, when Democrats Nina Trasoff and Karin Uhlich succeeded Republicans Fred Ronstadt and Kathleen Dunbar. This put Tucson firmly under Democrat control. The newly elected Democrats were to transform Tucson into a happy, crime-free, traffic-jam free, neighborly city with a vibrant downtown in which one could not swing a cat without hitting some kind of artist. The big plank in the platform was the elimination of the trash fee, originally instituted by those nasty Republicans.

The reality, of course, turned out much differently. People are not moving around town on greenways and bicycles; rather, the City Council has approved plans by the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) to make roads bigger and better for *gasp* automobiles. The Rio Nuevo project, that was to “revitalize” downtown Tucson, has been so poorly managed that there is little to show for the ten years, and 60 to 100 million or so dollars, apparently spent on design concepts and artist’s renditions. I just checked my water bill and, and yep, the trash fee is still there. Then there is the goofy stuff like facilitating classes that teach kids how to spray graffiti. I could go on, but you get the idea.

So, Tucson really is the laboratory in which the Republicans can test ways to win against floundering Democrats. The old loser approaches should be abandoned. A focus on technology, particularly social networking, would help. More resources directed at grassroots efforts, with more autonomy at that level, would bring the campaigns into the 21st century. There is certainly enough disenchantment throughout the community that money should not be a problem.

The only major stumbling block is the party itself – they are, as of this writing, three months behind already! I asked Bob Westerman, chairman of the Pima County Republicans, if they were on it. He said that they were actively recruiting. I hope so. This is an opportunity that ought not be missed.

If you have been griping about how you find the current council embarrassing, if you are aggravated by what you see as an anti-business climate in this town, now is your chance to step up to the plate. Imagine, being on the cutting edge, beating the majority party, being the example to which the big boys look for ideas and guidance, making history….any takers?

It came to light, in a local daily, that the City of Tucson is funding a gaffiti class. That’s right, taxpayer money is being spent teaching children how to spray paint walls. In fact, Regina Romero earmarked $8,000.00 for the project.

Most of the City agencies involved have been scurrying to find excuses, most of them are some form of “Well, we heard of the project, but had not considered or approved it, and suddenly it just happened.”

Regina Romero was the only one in the article that was either gutsy, or stupid enough to defend the program. She apparently asked a bunch of kids what they wanted to do, they said they wanted to do graffiti, and here we are. She actually said, “Who are we as adults to judge what the youth are interested in. We’re reaching kids that wouldn’t otherwise take an art class.” The answer to her question is in the question itself – WE ARE THE ADULTS. Is it not a the role of the adults in our community to guide children regarding their intrests and behaviors?

If the children said that they wanted to deconstruct buildings with fire, instead of vandalize building walls, would Ms. Romero be saying, “Who are we as adults to judge what the youth are interested in?” Would she earmark $8,000.00 to set up structures in the TFD training facility that the children could learn to burn down in a creative and educational way? Would City officials say that the purpose was to provide a place for kids to burn buildings safely so they would not go out and do it illegally?

When I was in High School, some progressive parents would let their kids drink in their houses. They thought that it would be better for the kids to do it under supervision, than out on the street somehere. It did not take long before they realised that their tacit acceptance of under-aged drinking led to a dramatic increase in the activity, and we kids did not limit it to the relative safety of their homes. The vast majority of parents already knew supervised under-aged drinking for the disaster that it was, and the progressive types came to that understanding in short order.

Hopefully, Ms. Romero will learn what some of our parents learned the hard way. It will, of course, be harder on the children who are recieveing mixed messages from those in authority.

Don’t forget to read my latest article that ran in the Tucson Weekly, and Inside Track: http://tucsonsammy.com/tucsons-modern-streetcar-project/

It is not news that City of Tucson revenues are way down. Sales taxes account for 42% of discretionary spending, and they have dropped off significantly, with no relief predicted in the near future.

In response, the City has cut back in the areas of hiring, training, and travel. It has also “slashed 10 percent of what it gives social services groups,” according to a local daily.

I have an idea. How about slashing 100 percent of what it gives to social service groups? It would be timely in light of the current budget problems, and no, I’m not suggesting that charities and non-profits not receive funding. I’m suggesting that they be funded directly by the people. Private donations are usually based on the institution’s performance. Government donations are based on politics. Besides, if you let the government make your donation decisions for you, the next thing you know, they’ll be choosing your light bulbs for you.

Seriously, is it not somewhat dehumanizing when the City infringes on the realm of giving? When you freely give your money to a worthy cause, your karma improves and your character is strengthened. When you give other people’s money to a worthy cause, you receive no such benefits.

If you think that people only do the right thing when forced to do so, then you will find free societies frustrating.

Ballot prop 105, known as “Majority rules”, would require a majority of registered voters to vote in favor for passage, as opposed to a majority of votes cast. This standard would apply only to ballot propositions that raised taxes or fees. The idea is that new laws which reach into your wallet should meet a higher standard than others. It is similar in concept to existing law that requires a two thirds majority vote for the Arizona Legislature to raise taxes.

My first conversation concerning this ballot prop included two Democrat friends, one of whom dropped his jaw with a horrified expression when I said that I liked it. Both friends expressed the idea that any voting standard that deviated from a simple majority of votes cast was certainly an un-American, deviant, evil thing that would bring on plagues of locusts, frogs, et cetera.

I was somewhat taken aback by their visceral negative reaction. It took me a while, but I figured it out. It came down to worldview, our at least, how we see our country. My friends see the simple majority vote as foundational, not as a mere process or tool. To them, the country is great by virtue of the simple majority vote.

They are completely wrong. The foundational principle that makes the country great is individual sovereignty, or liberty/responsibility. Voting is a democratic process that picks, and disciplines, our representatives.

This dichotomy of worldviews accounts the hysteria of my friends. They see the prop as an attack on the foundation of our society, I see it as an appropriate tweaking of a process to adapt that process to a particular law-making instrument.

My friends are not just wrong, there is a dark side to their view. If individual sovereignty is not sacred, but anything done by majority vote is, then we have entered a world of tyranny where forty-nine per cent of the people will be oppressed.

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.