A Short Defense of Realism in Policymaking

Quick: are you an optimistic person?
You might have been able to find an answer quickly, but what exactly does that mean? For many people, optimism is expressed as at least one of the following:

"I expect things to turn out well"
"I hope for the best"
"Things will go how they are meant to be"

The problem is these statements are dissociative from one another and are not necessarily mutually inclusive. For instance, I take issue, even offense, with being placed in either camp because it makes certain assumptions about your behavior, assumptions which can be disproved in either category.

This is vital in whatever you do, but particularly relevant to the field of policy---and therefore why I reject both camps. If we are really only capable of being pessimistic or optimistic people, then how does that affect how we view, respond to, and shape society? Do optimists not respond to poverty, only relying on sheer hope and higher power to raise the destitute from their awful conditions? What about pessimists? Since we'll probably all be nuked someday anyway, why don't we just press the button and fire missiles at all our enemies now?

These are dramatic examples, but they illustrate the sheer poor logic of trying to explain or pigeonhole individuals in this manner, and why I tend to come into conflict with either camp. The pessimists I've come across accuse me of being too liberal, too hopeful: I have too much faith in the future and the ability of well thought-out solutions to have positive impact on negative situations. For instance, I support welfare programs that assist poor families buy necessities. "WHY?" claim my more negative counterparts. "They'll just live off the system!"

Meanwhile, the optimists I interact with will accuse me consistently of pessimism---sometime to their own delight. The strongest instance of this is when I have pointed out the sheer number of issues which I believe we're performing poorly--economics, taxes, health care, environment, immigration, foreign policy--I am accused of focusing too much on the negative. In the words of Eleanor Roosevelt, "damned if you do, damned if you don't".

This is why I fundamentally disapprove of either label. As someone who believes in policymaking, I believe it is irrational to hold to either ideology---I eschew ideology in general, in fact. Tending and responding to the needs of society requires a degree of impartiality and an as-close-as-possible to objective analysis of the conditions as possible. Furthermore, while a leader has to believe in his own ability to improve the state of his people, he must also be prepared for his own failures or worsening of the situation---or risk being crushed by the consequences if he is caught unawares. It would be irresponsible to be given the reins to a society and act in any other way. If you disagree with me, feel free to comment but I happen to believe this is the proper manner to carry oneself when you are in the field of policymaking.

ICBINBS Guide to AZ Elections, Ballot Cheat Sheet

I was asked to provide a "cheat sheet" for the ballot measures, both short summaries for the props and my own opinion on how to vote for them. Please know that the votes are my own and if you need more info, I invite you to visit here for more depth and links to bipartisan information on the ballot. Here goes:

Prop 106: Will outlaw any law forcing citizens of AZ to buy health insurance (called a mandate, as in the one in the Obama health care bill).
My vote: No.

Prop 107: Will outlaw affirmative action (a.k.a. equal opportunity) programs for state employment, meaning it is now illegal to favor any race, including minorities, in employment programs.
My vote: Yes.

Prop 108: Would cause all formal voting in the state--elections and union votes, primarily--to be "secret ballot" (as opposed to "public ballot" where people know what each other voted for).
My vote: Yes.

Prop 109: Re-guarantees the right to hunt (and associated right to guns) in AZ.
My vote: Yes.

Prop 110: Outlaws land sales/use that impede existing military institutions.
My vote: Yes.

Prop 111: Changes "Secretary of State" to "Lieutenant Governor", and states that in future elections, Governor and Lieutenant Governor must be of the same party, like the President and Vice President.
My vote: No.

Prop 112: Shortens the time allotted for petitions to get the number of signatures they need to be on the ballot.
My vote: No.

Prop 203: Legalizes medical marijuana.
My vote: Yes.

Prop 301: Moves ~$120 million from a conservation account (where they can't be used for anything but conservation, and currently sit idle) to the General Fund (where the legislature can move it anywhere to make up the current deficits in other departments---education, law enforcement, etc).
My vote: Yes.

Prop 302: Moves ~$300 million from a pre-K education fund to the General Fund (similar principles to prop 301).
My vote: Yes.

Stop making things up

This post is going to be particularly short. I'm very much sick of the media trying to make up various narratives about the reason behind Obama's sliding approval rating and the likelihood of a Democratic loss of Congress. Generally, the artificial story seems to revolve around voters either being dissatisfied with (1) the "high spending and deficits" of the Obama Administration, or (2) unemployment remaining at 9-10% despite recovery efforts.

Question for Fox/MSNBC/CNN: isn't it a bit insulting to assume that unemployment IN GENERAL is enough to simply throw an entire government-in-power out the door? Surely the American voting population deserves a bit more credit than that. The unemployment rate isn't at 53%, guys, so the 48% approval rating can't exactly be explained away as "people who don't have jobs disapprove", and "deficit spending"? We've deficit spent for half a century, and NOW people make it the number-one issue? Come on.

While democratic voting can be a fickle beast, it also demonstrates larger trends than mere issues and opinions--I think the sliding approval for Democrats is systemic of a larger American dissatisfaction with the US government in general, and although the party-in-power will always stand more to lose under such circumstances, it can hardly be called a victory for Republicans. The Tea Party movement, despite its faults, is the first real symptom that the American patience for the see-sawing of parties without any real progress in policy success is wearing thin. The gains Republicans make this coming November will be enormous relative to their current minority in Congress, and they will get a majority. But watch the margins. The fact is, the seesaw will tip some in favor of the GOP, but the overall attitude of American voters isn't "get me a job" or "fix the budget", it's "do something good for the country, damnit!" The anger isn't exclusive to conservatives, just as it wasn't exclusive to liberals in 06 and 08. It's time to drop the act, media: stop pretending like it's the same-old change of the guard and start reporting what Americans are really riled about.

Call Me Crazy: Do What Ahmedinejad Says

This week, always-controversial President of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mahmoud Ahmedinejad gave a speech at the United Nations in which he effectively claimed the U.S. government was conspiratorially involved in the Sept 11 attacks on its own people. Specifically, Mr. Ahmedinejad claimed that among the prevailing "theories" about responsibility for the attacks, was:

"That some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime. The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view.

In response, the United States (which hosts the United Nations headquarters in downtown NYC), all 27 members of the European Union, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Costa Rica, immediately walked out of the General Assembly in open protest (a common diplomatic move to express displeasure).

In response to the remarks, American President Barack Obama said in a speech, that the suggestion of American involvement in 9/11 was "offensive" and "hateful":

"...And particularly for him to make the statement here in Manhattan, just a little north of ground zero, where families lost their loved ones, people of all faiths, all ethnicities who see this as the seminal tragedy of this generation, for him to make a statement like that was inexcusable"

Today, speaking to reporters, Ahmedinejad defended his inflammatory remarks, stating "I did not pass judgement, but don't you feel that the time has come to have a fact finding committee [?]

Now, call me crazy: but I think we should do as Ahmedinejad says. Hear me out:

First of all, the man gets away with saying what can only be called crazy bullshit very often, yet receives a considerable degree of respect in the non-Western world because he manages to make these claims without being effectively countered or shamed by his opponents in the US, EU, and elsewhere. So, it's time to end his reign of crazy in the international community.

Here's what I say, Mahmoud: I'll consent to the creation of an independent commission to study whether the US government (or "certain segments") were active co-conspirators in the 9/11 attacks. On one condition: if the commission's finding's do not support your stated "widely supported" theory, then you will come to Washington D.C. and deliver a formal letter of apology to the people of New York and the United States of America in general, and be barred from speaking at the United Nations General Assembly for the remainder of your term.

It's time you were muzzled, and this time, I want to see your own words do it. Let's go Ahmedinejad, back up what you say you analyze to be the truth. If, of course, you're man enough, and not some shadow of a real leader making empty gestures to make up for your lack of real power with rhetorical attacks on this country and our integrity. Go ahead and decide.

Mosques, Muslims, and 'Merica.

Watching the coverage of the "Ground Zero Mosque" has made me progressively angrier, primarily because the entire debate is based off of misconceptions and false logic. The argument over the building of this mosque/community center has become a microcosm for Muslims' place in American society, and as such it bears thoughtful, thorough analysis---and is being given none on the airwaves. In an effort to defend Muslims' equality in this nation, here's some of the most popular myths, misconceptions, and downright lies about Islam and its followers, and why they need to go away.

1: "Islam is a political religion! They want to take over! The Koran says their duty is to spread their religion over the whole world!"

This one's popular among Islamophobes because, at its core, this statement is true. Islam was founded by the Prophet Muhammad in roughly 610 AD, but his followers in Mecca were persecuted by the existing authorities, so they fled to Medina to start a kingdom there, with Muhammad as leader. He and his successors were incredibly efficient in conversion and conquest, eventually coming to rule vast swathes of what is now called the Middle East and North Africa. This rule spread the Islamic faith across continents, until it dominated more than a billion (almost 20%) of the world's people.

If you're wondering, Mohammed was REALLY GOOD at Risk.

Muslims, believing that their faith is the true religion of Allah (who would adhere to a religion they didn't believe was true?), feel it is their duty to spread this truth to every corner of the Earth, to the benefit of mankind. Those who violently oppose this spread are subject to war with Islam.

It's that last bit that has Christians, but many others, worried about the intentions of Muslims, particularly Muslim immigrants in the West. And it's true, look how worrisome this text is. God tells the reader that the people of a different religion in their land must be destroyed:

"But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee [for] an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth."

Frightening, eh? But wait, that's the Bible, commanding the Jews to commit what can only be described as genocide: the text doesn't make exceptions for women, children, animals, unarmed bystanders, it just says kill everything. How horrifying! Should we be worried that our Christian neighbors going to church on Sundays are secretly plotting our murder? "No," you say, "because they're rational people who live righteous lives without having to follow the murderous commands of every verse in the bible." Right...and so, what's the difference between that, and the Muslims who abide all our laws, live well, and choose not to follow the more violent parts of the Koran?

See folks, there's just one problem with accusing Islam of being a political religion: virtually every other religion is political as well.

Ever wonder why the largest Christian denomination on Earth is called the ROMAN Catholic Church? Because it was decreed into existence by the Roman Emperor Constantine, in the Edict of Milan. Long story short, it was the Emperor who not only legalized Christianity, but formed one church from it, and organized the Bible's contents. The Catholic Church would become the main source of political law in not only Rome, but the Medieval kingdoms to follow, and for more than one thousand years dominated politics of the European continent.

That's just one huge example, and the Catholic Church takes a lot of heat. "But Eric," you might argue, "that's just one Christian religion. You can't say Catholics represent all Christianity!" And to that I would say "how are you talking to me in an article? But anyway, you're right, I'm being unfair." So, let's see: there's religious conservatives, self-proclaimed activists who point to their religious doctrines, mainly the Bible, for influence in politics. They range from the Catholic to the Evangelical to the Presbyterian and Methodist, and everything in between. These very same people who are arguing against the mosque being built because of Islam's political nature, happen to also claim that America's politics should be dominated by Christianity (note--only watch up to 1:40, the rest is the host's opinons):



Here's my other problem with that claim: if Muslims want to take over the country, where are they? (Besides Obama, of course...) I mean, if Islam is so dominant a political powerhouse, then why are there no major Islamic political movements? Why is the Tea Party winning some elections but no Muslim party is registering on the radar? Maybe the Secret Muslims are taking seats in Secret Congress so they can pass Secret Laws to Secretly Rule Behind The Scenes America...or maybe the idea that there's an active attempt by Muslims to dominate American politics is bullshit and fearmongering. Moreover, given the fact that these Christians want to dominate politics to establish their own theological laws, the accusation that "Islam is a political religion" reads more like thinly-veiled attempt to drown out their competition than a real warning to fellow Americans.

"Warning! There's only 130 of us to every 1 Muslim! RUN FOR THE HILLS!"

Let's look at reality here people: every religion in existence, by the simple reality of possessing rules for how you should live and conduct your affairs, is a political religion. A community made up entirely of Christians will live according to Christian rules. A community made up entirely of Muslims will live according to Muslim rules. A community, such as ours, made up of a huge amalgamation of every people, race, tongue, and religion known to mankind, must find common ground to live on, not attempt to dominate and castigate one another.


"Islam is a violent religion, just look at the Koran!"

Obviously, this claim begs us to actually look at the Koran to tell whether it's true. So, let me get my trusty copy out, and look...oh, here we go, violence:

"[If a man tells you to follow another God,] thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from...thy God"

"Honey, those Mormons are back at the door!"

Aw Islam, you and brutally stoning people for proselytizing their faith to you, it's like peanut butter and---oh, wait, whoopsie folks, I'm afraid this is a quote from the Bible (Deuteronomy 13:9). Let's try that again. Ok, here we are, one that demonstrates Islam's desire to conquer in the name of God and glorify it:

"[Our proud kingdom] smote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, and slaughter, and destruction, and did what they would unto those that hated them."

Wow, God gives you free reign to attack and murder those who hate you? How can any religion under a peace-loving God believe tha-- oh wait, that's the Jews. That's the Jews killing all of their enemies, proclaimed with the help of God, in Esther 9:5.

Then there's the genocidal reference from the previous section. You see my point? Just because a text says something violent, and even if some adherents of the religion have acted on that text (David and Solomon, Pope Urban II, etc), does not and should not condemn all the adherents of a religion. Most religions have embarrassing textual issues, that's just the reality of trying to believe in something written for the harsh times and rules of the Iron Age. But, then, that's a problem of....

Guilt by association
We all know the burnouts from our schools: the kids who never cared, who didn't want to be told what to do, and will end up serving you a McFlurry one day, provided they stay out of prison. Every single school has them. Now imagine for a second, if you applied for college, and they pulled up that kid's record from your school. And evaluated YOU based on HIS record.

That's what judging regular Muslims against the record of terrorists is---that's the logic involved. Terrorists are burnout, monstrous idiots who also happen to have guns and bombs. And we lump in every other person because we don't know much about the religion to make the distinction.

Imagine, for instance, that Americans were judged by the actions of the Ku Klux Klan, that somewhere in the world there are people who believe that, by association, you must also be a skinhead, anti-Semitic racist maniac. That's insane, nobody's done that, right? Wrong:


This is a poster from the Soviet Union during the Cold War, enlarged so you can see details. The caption reads "FREEDOM...AMERICAN STYLE." The Soviets pointed out that the freedom and tolerance-loving American people also had the KKK and lynchings, along with the armed breaking up of protests shown in the bottom right. Now, think about it: technically, the poster isn't even lying. The United States HAS had these people and events take place: KKK lynchings, Kansas State protests that resulted in deaths. But tell me this: is it fair that the USSR, or anyone else, judge the entire country and all its people based on these things? Do you like the idea of being spoken for by the KKK? Of course not.

Well then why do we justify doing the same thing to Muslims? The counter-argument is often that Muslims all believe in the same religion, thus they must reach the same conclusion. Really? Because the KKK and the Unabomber and the Olympic Park bombers of 1996 were all Christians. So, using the Bible as inspiration, should all we Christians reach the same conclusion about sending bombs through the mail, hanging blacks and Jews and Catholics, and loading up pipe bombs with shrapnel in the middle of crowded places? I think not. Similar to what Christians would say of the Bible, the Koran is a document heavily open to interpretation, and many Muslims have divergent opinions on exactly how and what to emphasize certain aspects of the writing. Judging them all on the views of minorities is very simply wrong. But that brings me to my last idea to counter:

"Violent Muslims aren't a minority of Muslims! Many of them see violence as ok and will kill Americans here!"

Now this one is probably the single most insulting of those covered in this post because you are legitimately calling an entire group of people murderers or would-be murderers. Let's back this up, shall we?

This is by Pew, one of the most respected polling and data analysis institutions on the planet. If you don't at least take Pew at its word, then you're too paranoid and honestly, delusional for me to have an open conversation with so you may as well stop here.

However, those who look at the numbers realize that Muslim Americans are solidly American citizens, with the greatest rates of accepting their society and functioning well there, as well as providing some of the smallest amounts of danger of any Muslim or general minority population anywhere.

Now, America's always been a highly successful immigration-oriented state, so this makes sense. Americans can be xenophobic, but generally our society and institutions are built to accept a large number of immigrants and build them into our society. The fact is, the system is working with Muslims just as well as it did with my Italian and Hispanic ancestors, and the Irish, German, Chinese, and African immigration waves before: hiccups and struggles with discrimination yes, but otherwise contributing well to the migrants and the Americans "already here".

So, why do we think Muslims will just start shooting at us at random? Well, paranoia and fearmongering. The American media and state have been very effective at making terrorism, particularly Islamic-based terrorism, seem like a real and ever-present threat to every American. And while this threat should be taken seriously, it has been significantly played up. There isn't a terrorist ready to blow you up in every major city. But, the true threat of terror is a topic I'll cover in the future---just know that the perception that Muslim=terrorist and terrorist=EVERYWHERE is pretty wrong.

Conclusion
If you have gotten to this point, let me begin by thanking you for sticking it out. I understand this was a long, verbose document and reaching the end is no small feat, as I think even I might have abandoned such a long post by now. However, I have a few words in closing.

First, let me emphasize that I am proud to count among my friends several believers in the Islamic faith. I have benefited both from their personal contributions to my life as well as the perspectives their faith has offered at different times. Their value is not tied to their faith, but it is also certainly not a detractor.

Furthermore, I have never once believed myself to be in danger around these friends. They are good friends of mine who I do not think of as Muslims first, so why would I feel any more insecure than I would with Christian, Atheist, or any other friend of mine. So, when people begin to discuss "Muslims" as one, monolithic institution, they are choosing to lump my friends into the discussion---and when they then insult that proud religion through lies, misinterpretation, and challenge their freedom to exercise their faith, they are launching an attack directly on my friends. Because of the way I view friendship, by extension they are launching an attack on me. I do not take this lightly.

As such, I feel strongly on this issue. I refuse to lie down and ignore the hateful, deceitful rhetoric coming not simply from ignorant backwaters, but from self-proclaimed educated and trustworthy sources like Fox News. These people regularly insist on their own rights to exercise religion and influence society with it. Yet when they turn around and insist that these rights either be denied or self-limited by Muslim-Americans, they are acting counter to the entire purpose of the American system. Commonly, conservatives and other groups so fearful of Muslim influence call upon the Founding Fathers for answers in their debates (which is a fallacy-style argument I'll cover in a future post). But, let's see about the Founders' feelings then, shall we? Washington himself claimed that he had no discrimination against Muslims, and would welcome some to Mount Vernon if they were "good workmen", the requirement he used for any worker. Jefferson was proud that the Virginia legislature did not issue any limitations on religious freedoms for anyone, including Muslims, a topic which had been raised. The Founders saw religion as only one factor in judging a person, not the principal means.

I'll close with the support of the first generation of Americans, signing a petition no fewer than 225 years ago:

"Let Jews, Mehometans [Muslims] and Christians of every denomination enjoy religious liberty…thrust them not out now by establishing the Christian religion lest thereby we become our own enemys" .... "It is men's labour in our Manufactories, their services by sea and land that aggrandize our Country and not their creeds [emphasis mine].

Even the founding generation of this nation, with less information about Islam, less interaction with Muslims, and less reason to tolerate them, viewed them with the same eyes that the Reverend King would have, insisting on the "content of their character" and their ability to contribute to society, not their religion, which is no indicator of them as a person. From 1785, to 1963, to today, this has been a unifying value of American democracy. Let us not, after so much progress, give this value up because of madmen. Stand in the face of fear and, like millions of Americans before you, show that it has no bearing on the greatness this country has to offer.

The ICBINBS Guide to the Arizona State Ballot, Part I

Today is Primary Day in Arizona, the state in which most of my readers (and I) live. Some readers may be shocked to know I will not be participating in voting today, primarily because I am an independent voter and thus I do not care for the internal squabbles of the party candidates. However, seeing as we're only a short few months from actual state election day, I felt it was timely to provide a short synopsis of what is happening this November's election. Seeing as I can't weigh in on the general election until final primary results are in, I am covering the state legislative elections and the ballot measures (bills) on this section. Hopefully you find this useful, otherwise I fail at my job :). Seek enlightenment below.

STATE LEGISLATIVE ELECTIONS
A guide to finding what AZ legislative district you live in (and therefore should vote for) can be found here. Scroll down to the bottom left and input your address to find out your legislative district.

At that point you'll be able to read this candidate statements guide and find the candidates for your district and read what they have to say about what they'll do for your district. By having their names, you could also Google their candidate websites to find out more specifics.

With your voting research done, you can go here to find your voting locations based on two different options of input. You'd be surprised how much is decided at the state level, so vote, for your own sake.

BALLOT MEASURES
Ballot measures are bills put on the ballot for approval or disapproval directly by the voters. The following ballot measures are slated for placement on the November 2010 ballot(links and information thanks to the good people at Ballotpedia), as well as my opinion for each one (clearly marked in capitals in case you don't want to be influenced) and my prediction for the electoral result. Enjoy!

Proposition 106: The measure would amend the Arizona State Constitution to protect Arizona citizens from being forced to purchase health insurance by government action, while simultaneously guaranteeing the right of citizens to purchase private health insurance.
MY OPINION: The supremacy (or lack thereof) of the Obama health care mandate will be decided in court either way, so amending the state constitution is fairly useless gesture for Arizona to pretend it doesn't have to participate. I will vote for, however, because a state defending it's citizen's freedoms from federal dominance is not distasteful to me.
PREDICTION: The measure will pass by overwhelming majority due to Arizona's strong conservative opposition to "Obamacare".


Proposition 107: The measure would amend the Arizona State Constitution by adding the following to Article 2:

This state shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.

In essence, the state constitution would be banning affirmative action programs by banning "discrimination" and "preferential treatment" in employment by the state (teachers, police, construction, etc).
MY OPINION: I am an opponent of most affirmative action programs, I believe 21st-century America is sufficiently prepared to punish continuing discrimination without having to favor any one group. I consider affirmative action today essentially reverse discrimination, so I will vote in favor of the measure.
PREDICTION: Arizona has never voted on affirmative action before. However, given the heavy white majority, I expect this measure to succeed, though probably by a close margin.

Proposition 108: The measure would amend the Arizona State Constitution to make voting by secret ballot in elections, ballot measures, and other voting procedures a "fundamental right" in the state. The amendment to the constitution would read as follows:

To preserve and protect the fundamental right of individuals to vote by secret ballot, where local, state or federal law requires elections for public offices or for ballot measures, or requires elections for public offices or for ballot measures, or requires designations or authorizations for employee representation, the right of individuals to vote by secret ballot shall be guaranteed.

MY OPINION: I agree that voting by secret ballot, including for unionization, is a fundamental right of citizens of any democracy. As such, I support the measure.
PREDICTION: Passage.

Proposition 109: The measure would amend the Arizona State Constitution to make hunting in the state (regulated by the legislature and the Game and Fish Commission) a constitutionally-protected right. The amendment to the constitution would read as follows:

A. The citizens of this State have a right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife lawfully. Wildlife belongs to this State and is held in trust for the benefit of the citizens of this state.
B. Exclusive authority to enact laws to regulate the manner, methods or seasons for hunting, fishing and harvesting wildlife is vested in the Legislature, which may delegate rule making authority to a game and fish commission. No law shall be enacted and no rule shall be adopted that unreasonably restricts hunting, fishing and harvesting wildlife or the use of traditional means and methods. Laws and rules authorized under this section shall have the purpose of wildlife conservation and management and preserving the future of hunting and fishing.
C. Lawful public hunting and fishing shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife.
D. this section shall not be CONSTRUED to modify any provision of common law or statutes relating to trespass or property rights.

MY OPINION: I don't even know why this was added to the ballot. I thought hunting was already pretty well-protected in Arizona, but I suppose this goes with the trend: recently states have been passing a multitude of pro-Second Amendment and gun/hunting related bills to show solidarity against any Democratic attempt at stricter gun control. But this measure doesn't even do anything; it prettymuch says "hey everyone? You know how you could hunt before? You still can." Since this does not really offend me in any way, I will vote in its favor.
PREDICTION: Hunting. In Arizona. What do you think? Passage.

Proposition 110: The measure, as I understand it, would essentially make it illegal to sell state trust lands for purposes that would harm or impede military bases, and permit sales that aid the bases' protection and other purposes.
MY OPINION: Seems fine and straightforward, I'll vote in favor.
PREDICTION: Passage, though an apathetic electorate could leave enough ballots blank to make the margin closer.

Proposition 111: The current position of "Secretary of State" would be renamed "Lieutenant Governor" (Arizona currently has no Lieutenant Governor). Furthermore, like a President/Vice President ballot, any candidate for Lieutenant Governor would have to run on a ticket with the same party
MY OPINION: Requiring the two highest offices of the state to come from the same party circumvents public elections, if you ask me. Yes, the disagreements between the Governor and Secretary of State of different parties can be cumbersome, but that's a function of government. I'm a bit torn on this one, but I'm leaning against.
PREDICTION: Passage. I don't think people will get that it's more than a title change.

Proposition 112: The measure would amend the Arizona State Constitution's petition processes. Currently, a certain number of signatures on a ballot petition (a petition to put a bill on the ballot to be voted on) need to be submitted by July 1 in order to be put on the ballot. Proposition 112 would move the deadline up to May 1, two months sooner.
MY OPINION: I tend to believe shorter petition deadlines favor the weak at the expense of those with more resources. A petition supported by businesses and lobbyists already has the resources to get signatures quickly; a petition created by students and spread by word of mouth deserves time to pick up speed. I am against shortening the time---I vote no.
PREDICTION: I'm pretty sure this will be passed because it SEEMS ok on the surface.

Proposition 203:The measure would legalize the use of medical marijuana in the borders of the state of Arizona.
MY OPINION: Generally a legalization of medical use is seen as a first step toward full legalization. I support legalization on libertarian principles, and reject the idea of marijuana as a "gateway drug" in itself. I will vote in favor of the measure.
PREDICTION: Tossup. There is vehement support for both sides of this argument.

Proposition 301: The measure would permit the transfer of $123 million in funds from a land conservation account into the general fund. In layman's terms, the government would be able to use that large amount of money for what it wanted and not keep it locked up in a different account.

The measure is intended to help counter the state's budget deficit and maintain government services elsewhere. Combined with Proposition 100 (1 cent sales tax increase) and Proposition 302 (see below), the Arizona deficit is expected to close.
MY OPINION: I wish there were another way, but this state's budget emergency calls for this measure. I happen to be pro-environment, but not at the cost of the rest of government, and these funds are needed. Thus, we detract from some of our conservation, but keep our state solvent. Because this measure is what I view as a necessity, I support its passage.
PREDICTION: Passage, the environment lobby won't defeat the deficit-tackling electorate.

Proposition 302: This measure would eliminate the "First Things First" program, a young children's and impoverished young children's education program, and use the funds for the rest of state government.
MY OPINION: Where the hell is this money going? I have a younger brother who never received program benefits, and I don't know anyone who did. It's difficult for me to justify $300+million in funds to a program I don't see any impact from...I mean, $300 million is a third of our deficit. Just as 301 is a necessity in my view, I support this measure as well.
PREDICTION: Tossup. The "children's education" aspect could become a heated issue, provided many people pay attention.

SUMMARY
The state has several measures that are clear responses to federal controversies. Most of the measures on here will, in my opinion, probably pass, but obviously every vote counts. The budget-balancing measures are some of the most controversial and important on the ballot, so make your decisions and vote. I hope this guide has given some insight, and I leave the rest to you.

PS: Part II, on the General Election candidates for Congress and State Executive positions, is coming soon! Thanks to all my readers.

Building Envy?

With all the debate over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque (which is neither wholly a mosque nor located at Ground Zero, but that's media coverage for you), it is easy to summarize the opposition as being Islamophobes or overly sensitive, or some other tactic that generally claims they are discriminating against Muslims.

For New Yorkers however, I have a feeling this is not simply about a Mosque too close to the WTC. I can't help but believe that the Cordoba project would be much less of a problem if it was being built in the shadow of a proudly rebuilt World Trade Center, instead of going up ahead of it.

The national media only updates the rest of us Americans on the Ground Zero project's stumbles every so often, but for New Yorkers the continued presence of an empty hole in the ground is a constant reminder that the powers of their city have, after a long 9 years, failed to fulfill their promise immediately following the attacks: we will rebuild. New York knows that this project, suffering everything from design arguments and contractor crises, is an abject embarrassment to the city at large. The lack of a monument and a standing,functional replacement for the original WTC must, understandably, make it that much harder for a city so badly harmed to heal.

As such, it comes as no surprise that a majority of New Yorkers, when asked if they oppose a Ground Zero Mosque, respond negatively. Why should a religious building that reminds them of the attacks be built before their great icon? I believe that for these people, subconsciously this is not about sensitivity or a paranoid fear of Muslims: it is about the failure to truly rebuild after the attacks, and the hurt that lingers because of it.

So for the New Yorkers asking these questions, I understand. At the same time, however, I still come out on the side of the Cordoba House because I believe in defending the free, legal exercise of religion as people see fit. However, I also come out on the side of New Yorkers, who deserve better treatment for their wounds after 9 years of waiting.

"If I'm not winning, I won't play"

The Tea Party is a frustrating bunch in many respects, but perhaps one of the worst is their foreign policy. Tea Party hero and one of the movement's de facto spokesmen, Rand Paul, stated that "I believe that the United States should withdraw from and stop funding altogether those U.N. programs that undermine legitimate American interests and harm the cause of freedom around the world."

There's a small problem, Mr. Paul: the "great game" of diplomacy continues whether you choose to participate or not. The U.N. is by no means perfect and to suggest that the U.S. should not push for improvements is to be a bit too idealistic for my taste, but to also simply refuse to participate is to give up a massive, monolithic forum of interaction and discussion for diplomatic matters. I consider bilateral or limited multilateral discussion more effective in most cases, but denial of the U.N. in general can only hurt a country's foreign policy. The Tea Party is the equivalent of a kid on the playground unhappy with a game's progress who stalks off yelling "I don't want to play anymore!" if he's not winning.

The problem with that strategy is you ALWAYS lose, regardless of your original reasoning. You will NOT gain anything but isolation from running away from something like the UN, as well as ire from everyone who continues playing. Good luck managing to fight for your interests globally (which is vital to America's future), if you're going to infuriate the globe by ditching commitments to the UN. Improving the organization is a necessary goal, but simply abandoning the organization altogether is a sure way to become the playground loser.

UNESCO: Istanbul's Heritage At Risk

This is a pretty shocking report from Al-Jazeera. I wasn't aware that so much of Istanbul's more "embedded" cultural sites were so quickly being eaten up by development efforts. Of course, for a rapidly modernizing and growing country such as Turkey, it would be difficult to justify or fund protection for these areas, which suggests that UNESCO and other organizations should form a fund to help support protection efforts.




I will note, however, that a suspension bridge in the area is probably a necessary addition to contribute to urban development and easing some congestion, and that building it is less contentious for me than the destruction of the cultural neighborhoods. In any case, the universal agreement should be that Istanbul deserves particular attention as a candidate for special protections against demolition, provided the local and national authorities can be given the resources to pursue other non-demolition options for their urban projects.

Arizona SB 1070: Arizonan Tragedy?

The ruckus (yep, ruckus, I feel like I haven't used that word often enough in life) over SB 1070, the "immigration law" from this wonderfully misguided state, seems to be primarily over injustices and other offenses that the law doesn't actually mean to commit, but does anyway as a byproduct of poor writing and too much faith in law enforcement authority. This makes it the latest in a long line of documents that had good intentions and were on the right track, but were composed and supported by idiots, namely Governor Jan "I'm not tan enough yet" Brewer and Senator Russell "I'm not a crook, except that one time I was fired for being one" Pearce. The law is designed to improve Arizona's right to enforce laws that it considers left unenforced as of now, which is precisely what the states have the right to do. The problem, of course, is in the area of unintended (or, as some opponents would argue, cleverly intended but concealed) consequences. There is often a line between the law's writing and how it is implemented, and the gap gets wider in proportion to the stupidity of the law's text (for instance, in Australia, while the sale of cigarettes and alcohol to children is illegal, it is technically legal for children to use them). The conflict over the law does bring to light stark extremes in the opinions on immigration, but it also shows the very real ways both sides are right---and how they both suffer from this law. I explain below...
The things the PROPONENTS of 1070 have RIGHT:

1. Illegal immigration is a serious problem in the United States, not out of racism (though of course xenophobia helps for some people), but out of economic and governance concerns. How can our government form reasonable policy if a sizable chunk of the people (12-15 million by some estimates, or 3-5% of the POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES) cannot vote, cannot legally drive, cannot be educated beyond minimum levels (or less), cannot and do not pay taxes, and cannot reach higher-paying and higher-productivity jobs for fear of discovery? For the good of both our legal citizens and the people seeking to take part in our nation, it is important the immigration laws be written and enforced logically, humanely, and with an eye to the benefit of the maximum number possible.

2. If the Federal Government does not enforce a law, even those over which it has jurisdiction, it is incumbent upon the states, in the interest of serving their constituents, to enforce that law, provided the enforcement does not supersede the Constitution (which is still supreme). Thus, the states have the right to pass laws which pursue the same goals as federal laws (like arresting illegal migrants) so their officers have the power to fulfill, without replacing, the federal government's responsibility. In the same way, state troopers can arrest you for speeding on an interstate highway, but they are fulfilling the federal responsibility to "regulate interstate commerce [and transportation, as stated by the Supreme Court]. To set a precedent that a state cannot pursue the same goals as the federal government, would kill the federal-republican nature of the entire Constitution, a vital aspect of our country. This immigration spat is not worth that, sorry. (A few years back I supported California in a similar dispute with the Environmental Protection Agency, which tried to say that California could not have tougher emissions standards than the feds because that was unconstitutional. If I shot down SB 1070 along this argument, I'd be a massive hypocrite.)

3. So-called "sanctuary cities" and their purpose (to provide havens for illegal migrants in blatant disregard of federal law) are in fact dangerous and disrespectful, and downright illegal, examples of local authority subverting national will. For those who don't know, sanctuary cities are cities that provide legal ways for illegal immigrants to live and function well in their borders, and in fact, sometimes even ATTRACT these migrants on purpose. If cities could usurp federal or state authority in this way on every other issue, our country would be nothing more than a network of little city kingdoms like Europe in the Middle Ages, just with cars and the Internet. We would live in a confusing, chaotic, and ultimately counter-productive nation. The right of Arizona, and any other state, to prevent and punish such egregious usurpation, is entirely pursuant to the aims and interests of the states, federal government, and all citizens of the country, and thus appropriate under the constitution.



What the OPPONENTS of SB 1070 have RIGHT:

-SB 1070 encourages racial profiling by way of practicality and vagueness:

1. For one, the law does not establish any means beyond "reasonable suspicion" to determine who will be stopped and asked for proof of legal status. The Supreme Court and other legal bodies have already provided that "reasonable suspicion" is vague enough to mean virtually anything, and that only in retrospect does "reason" come into it; ultimately, the officer empowered to enforce a given law with "reasonable suspicion" has almost total and unimpeded authority to act in a situation as he/she sees fit.

2. Second, the phrase "reasonable suspicion" is not only legally vague, but also in this context very practically vague. As in, how does an officer determine "suspicion" in a way that does not entail very real racial profiling and therefore state-warranted discrimination? What qualifies as "suspicious of being/transporting an illegal"? Consider this: a 15-passenger, somewhat dirty van comes driving back from what the officer knows is open farmland, and the van is full of dirty, sweaty young men. Does the officer stop this van and ask what they are doing and if they have proof of residence? Let me give you one last descriptor: the van is full of mostly white, blonde kids. See, the van is coming back from a service project done by a church group. I was in that van, couple years back we went and tiled a house on farmland. Guess what? I bet we can agree that if an officer saw that van, with the smiling white folk, he wouldn't think twice about wasting his or those nice people's time and asking them for proof of legal residence. Now fill that same van with tan Hispanic people, like myself. Now, as part of the powers provided by SB 1070, he has full legal authority to stop this van on the "reasonable suspicion" that a group of Hispanics that large is likely (in popular consensus) to contain an illegal migrant. Here's the kicker: when I went to do that, do you think I brought my ID, Social Security Card, or anything else I wouldn't need on a high-manual labor project? You sure as hell bet not, so chances would be that if I was in that second van for the EXACT SAME REASON as the other one, I could easily be arrested on suspicion of illegal residence, and held for that crime. Doesn't matter that it's a mistake, it's a pretty hefty toll on my civil liberties, and makes me think twice about leaving my house, even for a short jog, without full legal proof of who I am---even though I was born in a hospital in California, to two natural American citizens. Now some people might very logically argue, "Eric, you assume all cops are abusive racist maniacs who wake up in the morning thinking 'I'm gonna catch me some brown folks'; can't you cut them some slack and think they'll only use this power where it belongs?" And I'd say "you know, I could, except for one little problem," which brings me to my next point...

3. Do you ever avoid doing things that you'd rather not do? Sure, everyone has stuff they skimp: sometimes we don't really give a damn that our desks are messy, or that the car needed an oil change 1,000 miles ago (or 100,000 miles ago for some people :) ). What if the penalty for not doing it suddenly became losing everything else you had? Bet you'd check your oil daily if you'd lose your house for not keeping up with it. Well, now think about it: the law SB 1070 provides that if a citizen thinks that an agency (or representative of that agency) has failed to enforce the law, then he/she can sue that agency. Hm, suddenly puts a bit of a fire underneath everyone to REALLY CHECK those papers, huh? Because otherwise, even if the State Agency wins the suit, it'll cost a fortune in legal fees and paperwork, and man hours lost to defend itself. So now, the agencies are all but ENCOURAGED to check every person who "kinda sorta looks like they might" be illegally here (read: are brown), because otherwise, if a very active citizen like Pearce saw the officer NOT ask, he could sue and cost the state thousands to millions.

4. Now, add everything up: vague writing, near-limitless enforcement power, pretty good assurance that race will play into the determination of enforcement, and lawsuits encouraging tougher, if not prioritized, enforcement of the law. What do we have? We have encouraged racial profiling, a lot more false arrests, many Hispanics in fear of our own state government, and the debate doesn't end: it just gets worse with everything else. Is this the Arizona, the America we want? A state united in either fear, or anger, or both? A state where race is suddenly a chief issue in people's minds, where our police are arbiters and victims alike in a battleground between citizens unable to meet in the middle? A state that sets the low bar for cooperation, openness, and effective government all at once? I think not.



THE TRAGEDY

In school, they teach us about tragedy, possibly the most emotive class of literature. Aristotle wrote that the best of tragedies contains a hero with hamartia, a "flaw" or "mistake" that often includes too much pride or hubris, and eventually leads to his peripeteia, the reversal of his fortune, until finally all that he has left is the moment of catharsis where he truly realizes his mistakes and where his flaws doomed him, but this realization is all to late. Tragedies are powerful precisely because they warn us of taking the same paths in our own lives. I fear that Arizona, and the United States in general, will through SB 1070 suffer its own tragedy:

We are dividing ourselves as if this law is the culmination of the "debate", as though the only options are to have it, or not have it. In doing so, we the heroes of this live play make ourselves more extreme and all the less likely to truly attack the problem of illegal immigration in a way that truly meets the needs of the country, as well as the human beings this conflict is actually about. Our hamartia is our lack of mutual understanding, our unwillingness to see the other side, exacerbated by our hubris and that of our leaders, who on both sides seem to believe they have all the answers and the right to talk down to us. I fear that this will leave us only worsening the problem by alienating a huge, up to now loyal, productive and loving portion of our population, taking our places on opposing sides, not actually solving the border problems and continuing to see drugs, crime lords, and related issues encroach our state, all critically hampered by the feeling of distrust and lack of cooperation. And worst of all, just as Aristotle, Shakespeare, and many other authors would warn, we will only experience a catharsis too late.


Of course, there is still time right now. We can reach out to one another and start a movement to reach a middle road and really find a satisfactory way to meet the challenge of immigration reform, or we can continue down the road and wait for the "plague on both our houses." You decide, Arizona.