1. Komen/Planned Parenthood smackdown. Supporters of comprehensive (and that includes reproductive) women’s health care pushed back hard on the Komen Foundation’s ideologically driven decision to pull breast cancer screening grants to low income women from Planned Parenthood and came out the winners. For some good national-level analysis on it, check out the excellent work Amanda Marcotte and Lauren Kelley have done. If you still doubt the extent of the victory, look no further than Arizona’s own Cathi Herrod of the socially conservative Center for Arizona Policy, who is very miffed about what she sees as Komen’s “waffling” and the pro-choice movement’s refusal to back down on women’s health.

Planned Parenthood has activated their base and is in full attack mode. We need to send a positive message to the Komen Foundation and pray they have courage and boldness during this time.

In that same blog post Herrod grouses about the Obama administration standing strong against the attempts of theocratic reactionaries to deny women contraception in private health plans. The moral of the story is that when we fight back, we win. And it hacks off Cathi Herrod, which is always a worthy endeavor.

2. Goldwater Institute exposed. The AZ legislature dropped a spate of bills designed to break public sector unions and cut the pay of teachers and first responders. It’s been described as “Wisconsin on steroids” and already the response is rivaling what happened in Wisconsin with educators, public safety workers, and advocates for working families amassing protests and press events to fight back. The Goldwater Institute was instrumental in drafting the anti-worker legislation, having feted WI Governor Scott Walker back in November at a fundraiser. GI is getting national exposure for this and much of it is not flattering. EJ Montini of the Arizona Republic called foul on both the Legislature and the (unelected) Goldwater Institute, whom he describes as “waging war on children, on sick people, on poor people, on teachers and on unions.” Kudos for the Mother Jones reference, EJ.

The moral of the story here is that the Goldwater Institute, which has presented itself for years as an objective academic organization serving lofty libertarian principles, is being exposed for what it really is – a big business lobbying group pushing ALEC legislation. Like the radical “pro-life” zealots who have finally gone too far by going after breast cancer screenings and birth control, GI has gone too far with this attack on highly regarded public servants.

Arizona progressives, let’s have a toast with the beverage of our choice over the nice victories of the past week and brace ourselves for next week.

Okay, people, did I not tell you the other day that being vigilant about reproductive justice is important? Personhood has reared its head in Arizona.

2010 was the year Arizona voters lost their damn minds and sent a bunch of reactionary whackaloons to the Arizona Legislature, essentially to show that Kenyan Usurper in the White House what was what. So we lost people like Rebecca Rios, a veteran Dem legislator and a strong advocate for children and the working poor, who had served her constituents and the state well. Pinal County voters sent Senator Rios packing and replaced her with Steve Smith, a businessman and Teabagger neophyte from the city of Maricopa.

It turns out that Senator Smith, in addition to being a simple-minded reactionary who marches in lockstep with Russell Pearce, is a dudebro with a massive preoccupation with what ladies are doing with their ladybusiness. I know. Shocking.

I really have to commend reporter Howie Fischer for asking Smith direct questions and making him go on record about his intentions with this “personhood” bill rather than let him blather about “the sanctity of life” and how much he cares about us delicate, fragile little ladies. Smith certainly tried to pull that paternalistic horsepuckey but couldn’t avoid making it crystal clear what a nasty piece of misogynist work he truly is.

But Smith said he sees a benefit in the legislation regardless of whether it ultimately leads to abortions once again being illegal in Arizona. He said the current informed consent requirements go only so far.

“But when they see what you’re killing is a human being in front of them, I think that’s hopefully just one more stopgate in their mental processing to say, ‘Oh, it’s not just an amalgamation of cells and globs of this and plasma this and blood this,’” he said.

“Mental processing”? WTF? It’s so unbelievably insulting. And creepy.

Smith’s legislation would apply in both cases of surgical and medical abortions, the latter involving the use of RU-486 which induces a woman to miscarry.

Less clear is how a law defining life as beginning at conception might affect the legal use of the “morning-after pill.”

One theory is that the pill, essentially a large dose of hormones, prevents a woman from ovulating. Smith said he subscribes to an alternate theory that the hormones prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus

I never cease to be amazed by how indiscriminately anti-choicers spew out uninformed medical opinions. It’s like they think that a lifelong burning obsession with what ladies are doing with their ladybits somehow bestows a license to practice medicine upon them. And the overwhelming consensus of medical science is that emergency contraception works by suppressing ovulation. You can “subscribe to an alternate theory” that it kills tiny little fertilized egg people all you want to but the doctors and scientists are still right and you are still wrong.

The first-term lawmaker said if it were up to him, all abortions would be illegal. That separates him from several “pro-life” politicians, including Gov. Jan Brewer who said she would allow exceptions, including in cases of rape or incest.

“I guess I’m a purist,” he said. “It’s easy for me as a man to say that because I’ll never be in that situation.”

Yeah, I guess.

Smith said his reasons go back more to his religious beliefs.

“God doesn’t make mistakes,” he said. “I believe that God is still on the throne and that’s happening for a reason, whether we get it or not.”

Just so we’re clear: The theology that guides Smith’s public policy views is that of a God who sits on a throne inflicting rape and incest upon his subjects for reasons known only to Him.

SB 1494 would require a specific mention of depression and related psychological distress as well as the risk of infection, hemorrhage, danger to subsequent pregnancies and infertility.

Smith acknowledged nothing in the law requires a woman to be told about the impacts of carrying a child to term, including how that will affect her life or finances. He said that is justified.

“They’re not going to a childbirth clinic, they’re going to an abortion clinic,” he said. “At an abortion clinic, they should be told the risks of having an abortion, not having the risk of having a child.”

He said any woman interested in the latter information should see a family doctor.

An OB GYN would be the best person to talk to about that. Some of them do abortions too, which would probably blow Steve Smith’s mind if he were aware of that.

The bill does require women to be informed of the “medical risks associated with carrying the child to term compared to undergoing an induced abortion” but that is the extent of the language dealing with that. It doesn’t state what risks of childbirth are to be discussed. The provisions dealing with risks of abortion are more specifically delineated.

(i) DEPRESSION AND RELATED PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS.
(ii) THE RISK OF INFECTION, HEMORRHAGE, DANGER TO SUBSEQUENT PREGNANCIES AND INFERTILITY.
(g) A STATEMENT SETTING FORTH AN ACCURATE RATE OF DEATHS IN WHICH THE ABORTION PROCEDURE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTING FACTOR.

A comprehensive study published in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology determined that childbirth poses a risk of death to the woman 14 times higher than abortion. Postpartum depression is a very real and debilitating condition that affects a not insignificant percentage of new mothers. There are undoubtedly women in Arizona who don’t have good access to information about abortion, childbirth, or medical procedures in general. so a law intended to inform them should cover all the risks to the extent possible, not just those cherry-picked and distorted by anti-choicers in the hopes of steering women toward certain decisions. Of course, anti-choicers tend to drop their feigned concern for women’s health the second they are confronted with the fact that abortion is safer than childbirth. “Abortion is safer than childbirth? For whom?”, asked the very first comment to the Reuters article I linked. When their b.s. about harmful effects to women is debunked they shift seamlessly back to the fetus, as if that had been what the discussion was about all along. You are never going to get a straight answer out of a rabid anti-choicer because that would require them to admit their movement is based on misogyny and not a concern for “life”.

The aspect of the bill that’s going to get the most attention is the “personhood at conception” part but the rest of it is pretty damned offensive too and I appreciate that Howie Fischer covered it in his report. As far as the personhood thing goes, Smith told Fischer he wants this bill to be the test case for Roe v Wade. We’ll see how far that goes. So far no other legislators have co-sponsored it. Though it’s not a ballot referendum as has been tried (very unsuccessfully) in other states, a “personhood” bill is a risky move in an election year nonetheless. Smith was careful not to target birth control in the language of the bill but it’s bleedingly obvious from his statements that he’s set his sights on that too. If other legislators join him the Democratic campaign ads will write themselves. And it was Smith who introduced last year’s spate of anti-immigrant bills that didn’t end up passing because the “business community” stopped pretending to be neutral and helpless and intervened to stop them. So it’s hard to tell at this point where this thing is going to go. But this is certainly no time to be complacent

They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues.

That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I’m aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.

– Rick Santorum

Iowa’s eventual winner, Santorum, came in third in South Carolina. The winner was the guy who proposed an open marriage to his second wife because he didn’t want to give up his mistress.

Per Jamelle Bouie in American Prospect

This was the Gingrich that Republicans love. A confident, combative firebrand, who exudes a persona of erudition, even as he offers an incoherent take on the world, the issues, and the views of his opponents. To wit, Gingrich accused Barack Obama of believing in a “Saul Alinsky European radicalism where the stage is sovereign and we are its subjects.” This is absolute nonsense—Obama is a center-left Democrat with centrist instincts—but it sounds correct to he audience. They were thrilled.

Indeed, the enthusiasm was infectious. Everyone I spoke to was either a long-term fan of the former House Speaker, or a new supporter, who was eager for Gingrich to win the nomination, and—as one attendee said—“destroy” Obama in debates. “I like him because I really enjoy watching him debate…he could just tear people apart and be really intelligent about it. And I would to see him do that to Obama”, said Cathy Nichols, a local high school student who plans to vote in Saturday’s primary.

For everyone I talked to, I asked if they were concerned about the recent revelations from Gingrich’s ex-wife, who alleged that the House Speaker wanted an “open marriage.” Chuck Gregoire, a semi-retired internet marketer, had a response that was pretty typical of the reactions I received. “We really need someone to come out and kick some but, and I think that’s really where the country is now, and he’s got the ego to get it done.”, said Gregoire. He clarified—he wouldn’t “trust him with my wife,” but he does believe that he could lead the country and correct for Obama’s presidency.

Brian and Cathy Renaud, who moved to South Carolina from Michigan after losing their homes to the Great Recession, were also dismissive of the allegations against Gingrich. “I think we all see through the media’s ploy,” said Brian, “Putting her up to talk two days before a primary? Give me a break.”

As popular feminist blogger and Facebook friend of mine Amanda Marcotte observed: “‘Family values’ is code for “putting bitches in their place”. Gingrich’s behavior is consistent with that.” South Carolina GOP primary voters preferred Gingrich to Santorum because Gingrich comes off as a tougher opponent against the Kenyan Usurper, not because there’s any difference between the two on the culture war. Individual liberty and privacy are reserved for straight white Republican men. It’s “radical”, to use Santorum’s description, for people who aren’t straight white Republican men to have those things.

That’s it in a nutshell.

There will always be excuses to dismiss the mountain of contextual factors that were stacking up in Tucson that winter and consider this a force majeure beyond all human control.

But to ignore the cluster of enabling factors right now is even more risky than it was to dismiss them back in the tense days before the shooting.

One of the ways to commemorate Jan. 8 is to stop kidding ourselves that Jared Loughner came from nowhere. Because he didn’t.

Zoeller’s friend, author Jon Talton, weighed in with his blog post “Heywood and Giffords”.

This was a tragedy. The shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, along with the wounding and murder of others, including a federal judge, was a crime. The one-year anniversary of this monstrous act was commemorated Sunday with much coverage and little clarity. The Republic did print an important essay by my friend Tom Zoellner, who has written the book, A Safeway in Arizona: What the Gabrielle Giffords Shooting Tells Us About the Grand Canyon State and Life in America. Don’t be fooled by the “let’s don’t offend anyone” headline. Zoellner raises profound questions, including about the social detachment that has become the norm in the state and neglect of mental health.

Opinion leaders and most “liberal” politicians were quick to distance themselves from Pima County Sheriff Dupnik’s truth-telling, that a climate of political extremism provided the tinder for this conflagration. The mental illness of the shooter helped give camouflage. The political extremism is on the right, by the way, and the whipped-up Tea Party, guns-everywhere-legislation, show your shootin’ irons when the president visits, Sarah Palin “don’t retreat, reload!!” atmosphere has barely abated in its tip-of-the hat to violence. The threats against Giffords were real and more severe than faced by any other member of the delegation, save Rep. Raul Grijalva. No gun control measures followed this quickly dubbed “tragedy.” Indeed, guns on campus is the big deal for the Legislature in a state facing huge real issues. Few now will call what happened a year ago what it was: An attempted political assassination.

Talton is right, of course, and notice that he emphasized legislation here. The GOP controlled the executive and legislative branches of Arizona’s government in 2011 and they not only expanded access to guns on college campuses but they also cut thousands of Arizonans off from extended unemployment insurance and health care (including desperately needed mental health services).

And as aggravating as the constant false equivalence claims over rhetoric – both sides are just as bad! – are to us liberals, the real crux of the matter is class. The elites don’t give right wingers so much more latitude (which is essentially what the false equivalence does) because they necessarily prefer their ideas (though some do). More often it’s because the worst conservative proposals and enacted policies don’t tend to hurt people who matter to them.

The onslaught of restrictions on abortion (and increasingly contraception) are mostly inflicted on poor women. Anti-gay laws harm wealthy LGBT folks but not nearly as much as they devastate those without money or influence. In 2011 the AZ lege passed a law allowing divorcing spouses to petition for more time to reconcile before a divorce is final. Again, while this poses difficulties for divorcing spouses of means, it puts a real hurt on poor women trying to leave an abusive marriage. The aforementioned are all Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) measures. Most of the reporting on them vis a vis CAP has had to do with how “influential” CAP is and is not directed on how their agenda impacts low income people vs affluent people.

Cuts to AHCCCS (Medicaid) threaten the state’s entire health care delivery system, and a lot of jobs (so much so that the AZ Chamber of Commerce and Industry is alarmed), but thus far there’s been no real push back on the right wing insanity (not enough to stop them on their crusade to deny health care to all low income and uninsured people) because, again, mostly its the easily expendable plebes paying the price right now.

Class figures into gun legislation in Arizona, too. I mean, seriously, if the elites really thought lax gun laws were primarily arming low income people to go after affluent people, do you think anyone would be able to get an automatic weapon and high volume ammo clip so easily?

It’s very easy to separate issues into “economic” and “social” silos, when your money and privilege shield you from the economic consequences of laws passed based on “social” issues. If you possess neither money nor privilege, EVERYTHING looms large, is important, and is your economy.

I got my latest email from my member of Congress, one Benjamin Eugene Quayle (R) a little earlier today. He reminded his constituents of his commitment to not taking his federal pension.

As your representative, I have worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to tackle these enormous challenges, and I have led by example. I recently made the decision that I would not be participating in the congressional pension plan. Currently, Members of Congress enjoy a pension plan that is far more generous than the majority of private-sector retirement plans. As we work to reduce America’s out-of-control debt, one of the areas in need of reform is the federal pension system. It would be the height of hypocrisy if Members of Congress proposed those reforms without first eliminating our own pensions. It addition to opting out, I also signed on to two similar bills by Reps. Tim Griffin (R-AR) and Mike Coffman (R-CO) that abolish the congressional pension plans.

It would also be the height of hypocrisy for a wealthy heir to demand that federal workers join screwed-over private sector workers in a race to the bottom. But when has hypocrisy ever stopped a rich conservative on an anti-peon crusade? Quayle’s proposal of eliminating Congressional pensions is not that impressive of a gesture as it is, considering how he is wealthy enough to have no need for a pension. But Quayle has to be elected twice more to qualify for the Congressional pension (you have to serve 5 years) and he has been redistricted into the same district with Rep. David Schweikert.

Rep. Quayle went on to whine about this:

Normally this time of year, there are certain greetings I would offer you. However, as you may have heard—just when you thought political correctness couldn’t go any further— Congressional rules forbid House Members from sending holiday good wishes to constituents. Upon hearing of this absurd rule before the Christmas holiday, I signed on to a resolution authored by Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) which resolves the that the House of Representatives recognizes the importance of symbols and traditions of Christmas and strongly disapproves of attempts to ban references to the holiday. So please forgive if me If I sound rude for not offering you a Happy ____ _____ today. It’s not my rule!

Normally, Ben? When had you offered them? In your annual Brock Landers Dirty Scottsdale Seasons Greeting? This is your first term in Congress. You haven’t established any normal anything in that capacity.

Quayle is claiming that he was censored from sending holiday greetings by the meaniebutt Congressional staffers who control franking, AKA the mailing privilege Representatives enjoy. The actual guidelines, according the Fox News article I linked to, say this:

Members are unable at the current time to use official resources to record holiday greetings, post on social media/website, or send to constituents in franked mail or e-communications.

Expenses related to the purchase or distribution of greetings, including holiday celebrations, condolences, and congratulations for personal distinctions (wedding anniversaries, birthdays, etc.), are not reimbursable.”

Franking Manual:
4(a). Example of Nonfrankable Items
-Birthday, anniversary, wedding, birth, retirement or condolence messages and holiday greetings are prohibited.”

You may make reference to the season as a whole using language along the lines of ‘Have a safe and happy holiday season.’ It may only be incidental to the piece rather than the primary purpose of the communication.”

Which means Rep. Quayle could have used his own (considerable) funds to send me (his constituent) a nice greeting that filled in the _____ _______ part. It’s okay, Ben. I had a nice _____ _______ anyway.

My Google Alert for Center for Arizona Policy popped up last night and it was Cathi Herrod’s weekly “5 Minutes for Families”. The latest installment is about the importance of stalwartness in protecting traditional marriage from the liberal gay plague: Never Let Our Guard Down.

While the marriage amendment victory was a critical step to protecting marriage in Arizona, we would be foolish to think our work is done to ensure marriage is never redefined. A recent poll from the liberal Public Policy Polling group claims a smaller margin of Arizona voters now support traditional marriage – 45% say same-sex “marriage” should be illegal, and 44% say it should be legal. Their poll also says that a majority of voters think that Arizona should establish marriage counterfeits like domestic partnerships.

Of course, the poll did not ask whether marriage should be defined as only the union of one man and one woman. The questions were not exactly neutral, and the polling company typically works for those who want to redefine marriage. The obvious intent is to begin laying a foundation to ask Arizona voters to redefine marriage in the next ten years or so.

The poll shows the “never give up” commitment of marriage opponents to eventually win on the marriage issue. These organizations are well funded and are well organized. Marriage opponents will be out registering voters and working hard to influence the 2012 elections. At CAP, our team will never let our guard down in our stand to see marriage stay the union of one man and one woman.

They certainly won’t. And their dedication to the pursuit of micromanaging your personal life for the Lord does not preclude dishonest Earthly means to attain Heavenly theocratic ends. Note Herrod’s mention of “marriage counterfeits like domestic partnerships”. Now, this is interesting because Prop 102 in 2008 was the “Marriage Protection Act”. It was sold to voters as a state constitutional amendment that would simply define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The proponents of the measure made a big deal of emphasizing that the state of marriage, and only marriage, was under consideration.

This was because in 2006 Arizona voters had narrowly defeated a proposed amendment with broader language that included denying legal rights to all unmarried couples.

To preserve and protect marriage in this state, only a union between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage by this state or its political subdivisions and no legal status for unmarried persons shall be created or recognized by this state or its political subdivisions that is similar to that of marriage.

So they came back two years later.

Didn’t we already vote on this?

Nope. In 2006, the voters focused on a different issue—benefits for unmarried couples. Prop 102 is a different amendment with different language. Prop 102 is 20 simple and clear words that define marriage as only the union of one man and one woman. That’s all.

But, I believe everyone is entitled to the same rights. Doesn’t Prop 102 take rights away from some people?

No. Prop 102 does not take rights away from anyone. Prop 102 simply defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Everyone has the right to live as they choose, but no one has the right to redefine marriage for all of society. Voting “yes” on Prop 102 secures the definition of marriage for future generations.

See? You were being silly and overwrought if you thought Prop 102 was an effort to invalidate unmarried relationships! It was all about marriage. Marriage, marriage, marriage. Oh wait.

Their poll also says that a majority of voters think that Arizona should establish marriage counterfeits like domestic partnerships.

Geez, why would Cathi care about people in alternative arrangements now that the precious holy institution of hetero marriage is secure?

After Prop. 107 went down to defeat by a vote of 48-52 percent, supporters of same-sex marriage adopted a clear strategy: They would back new partnership benefits, then frame the public debate around protecting those benefits, all the while paving the way for same-sex marriage. But opponents of gay marriage also learned from their loss. They decided to push for a simple, straightforward amendment that would enshrine the traditional definition of marriage without touching the domestic partnership issues raised in 2006, thus making it difficult for the opposition to obscure the central issue. “Just the simple definition of marriage was what we wanted to do,” said Herrod. “Other issues related to that would be addressed at a different time.”

Cathi and her crew got right on “other issues related to that” once Jan Brewer became Governor, didn’t they?

My dear friend Diane D’Angelo, who by the way is an outstanding correspondent on Arizona for Huffington Post, wrote on Facebook yesterday that a Capitol Times reporter asked her if she really thought ALEC wrote laws for GOP legislators in Arizona. I’m now looking for someone to suture my tongue together, quoth Diane about that. I understand the sentiment. Those of us who have been painstakingly explaining how the American Legislative Exchange Council wields tremendous power over state legislatures, with facts and cites to back us up, are rather tired of so-called “legitimate” journalists treating it as if it’s sort of a wacky conspiracy theory akin to 9-11 Truth or chemtrails. I understand why Cap Times might act that way – they rely heavily on ad revenue from the very lobbyists they cover in their newspaper. Same with the major newspapers and TV news teams vis a vis corporate ad revenue. But even Stephen Lemons of the New Times had to reassure his readers he’s “not a conspiracy-minded individual” in his otherwise credible coverage of the ALEC conference and planned protests in Scottsdale.

My theory is there are a couple of things going on here, aside from the aforementioned corporate interests. The first is plain old butthurt among local journos that out of staters (NPR and In These Times) scooped them on the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), ALEC, and Russell Pearce connection back in 2010. There was some brief, superficial coverage but a false choice narrative developed quickly among the Arizona chattering class that Russell Pearce couldn’t have gotten SB1070 straight from ALEC because he’s always been such an anti-immigrant demagogue. I also recall a Twitter exchange I had with Casey Newton, then the political reporter for the Republic, where he dismissed the NPR story and the private prison connection due to some nitpicks over a minor inconsistency or two (which didn’t detract from the main story at all). The second thing is that ALEC is an organization that keeps aspects of its operations, such as meetings and legislator member lists, secret. Now, lots of very powerful organizations do key parts of their operations in secret (CIA, military, etc.) and no one doubts that. But concocting elaborate imaginary secret networks is also the stock in trade of conspiracy loons. So kneejerk defenses tend to go up when people see “secret”. It triggers the “wacky conspiracy” switch in their brains, especially if it’s something unfamiliar, like ALEC is to most people. But reporters should really try to deactivate that switch and activate the “powerful and scary” one where ALEC is concerned.

This may seem like a re-hash, and it is, but I’m going for a conceptual frame here. Call it the conspiracy theory-free case for why ALEC should be taken more seriously by mainstream reporters:

History

ALEC was formed in 1973 by a small group of right wing politicians and operatives including a crafty neo-con nutbag named Paul Weyrich. Weyrich was a fundamentalist Christian who wanted to reshape America as a Dominionist theocracy but he also liked sweet, sweet corporate money and power. So he and his pals formed the American Legislative Exchange Council to be a clearinghouse of conservative and business-friendly economic policies and to wield influence over state legislatures. They figured, rightly, that it would be easier to shove anti-environment, anti-worker, anti-regulation laws on Americans via the states rather than Congress, which people tend to pay more attention to. More people can name their member of Congress than can name their state reps so state reps can do a lot of damage, largely under the radar. Weyrich was also super hostile to the peons voting.

“I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”

What a guy. But, as you can see, the history behind the conservative-corporate nexis that is ALEC is documented and easily verified.

Eyewitness Testimony

I’m sure State Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI) would be more than willing to share his experience with reporters and others still having trouble grasping that ALEC is a real, and formidable thing. Pocan, a staunch liberal, somehow managed to finagle an ALEC membership and has attended some of their national conferences. In the linked Progressive piece Pocan recounts vividly the atmosphere of secrecy and paranoia that pervades ALEC.

The level of paranoia at the convention by the ALEC staff was intense. They had added security to keep outsiders away. Even people who tried to register for the convention from outside groups like the Center for Media and Democracy were kicked out and the person’s picture was known by all the staff.

When two people from the Center for American Progress were kicked out, they even had altercations with them. Outside of one of the secret evening events, they were physically accosted and one person left bleeding by the end.

No video cameras were allowed. They nervously paced the hallways at all levels looking for suspicious characters. When you went to one of the Task Force meetings where they actually approve the corporate model legislation, only task force members can even get a copy of what is presented. And since members are selected by their state delegation leaders, no one like me would ever get on a task force.

Pocan isn’t able to get into the super-duper secret inner sanctum task force meetings but I think it should be clear from what he has witnessed that ALEC is a shady and profoundly undemocratic outfit.

I understand why they have such intense secrecy. They should. They are nothing more than a front for passing on corporate and special interest wish lists to conservative legislators, really a matchmaking service as I have described before. Call it corporate match.com I guess. But it is clear what goes on.

So Rep. Pocan is talking a lot about the secrecy here but it’s his firsthand account and you can ask him directly about it if you want.

Model legislation, and lots of it.

Really guys, the grunt work has been done for you, research-wise. Whistle-blowers from inside ALEC provided the Center for Media and Democracy with reams of model legislation secretly voted on by ALEC legislator and corporate members. Voted on in secret with no public input. CMD created a website called ALEC Exposed where they have helpfully categorized and analyzed the model bills and resolutions. A veritable treasure trove straight from the source. There are also good secondary source reports like this one from People for the American Way and Common Cause doing a side-by-side comparison of ALEC model bills and actual bills introduced by the Arizona Legislature, including the infamous SB1070. Why not try reading all this stuff and seeing how factual and well-sourced it is and why it matters greatly to the lives and well-being of Arizonans? Why not develop a full understanding of what ALEC is and what it does before playing that dismissive and condescending he said/she said false equivalence game some of you do so well? I know you have deadlines but, sheesh, they put it on easy-to-read charts for you! You guys have demonstrated repeatedly how every time the Goldwater Institute farts up a “research” paper it ends up being an 8 part series about pension abuse (or whatever the corporate issue du jour is) on the front page and the topic of breathless “investigative” coverage on the evening news. So I know you can do it. If you choose not to do legit coverage on ALEC for whatever reason (maybe your job security) just please spare us the snotty conspiracy insinuations, okay? ALEC isn’t a conspiracy. It’s a travesty.

Lori Klein, an Arizona state Senator and Cain’s Arizona state chairman, told CBS News she stands by Cain.

She says she has known him for 12 years and he’s “never been anything but a gentlemen – and I am not an unattractive woman.”

Klein suggested that if Cain is innocent he should sue White for libel and went on to attack the media for digging up the allegations. She also said that in politics, “we want a virgin to do a hooker’s job.”

Take that, haters!

“usc-ucla? Felt like was sitting at a newport beach yacht club. Coyotes? Midgets, special ed and axel rose wannabes nearby.”

One of the fairly immutable laws of humor is that good humor punches up, not down. Jason Rose punches down, always. Which is why he’s not funny, ever, and everyone knows it. Even the people who laugh at Rose’s schtick because he’s a rich white guy (rich white guys tend to have people around them who will pretend they’re funny) know that Jason Rose is not funny. He’s mean. Why the Special Olympics would hire a mean person to do PR for them and then be surprised when he eventually says something mean about their participants is beyond me, but they did and I’m glad they at least realized their mistake and gave him and his firm the boot.

I’ve been wanting to blog about the high school student in Kansas who tweeted that Gov. Sam Brownback sucks and blows a lot and got in trouble with her school because one of Brownback’s staffers saw the tweet and whined to the school about it. I totally defended her on facebook and still do. She was exercising free speech and Brownback’s staff and her principal’s response (trying to force her to write an apology letter and attaching the incident to her permanent record) were gross abuses of authority. Inevitably, some of my fellow liberals got all etiquette nanny on the girl about her “tone” and pearl-clutchy over the horrible “incivility” that’s destroying public discourse and whatnot. Which is unfortunate, because I tend to expect liberals to be critical thinkers and better able to make distinctions between silly tweets by a high schooler and a public officials acting like Joe McCarthy in response to it. It’s the latter kind of behavior that’s the real threat to civil society. And just in case anyone wants to accuse me of hypocrisy for condemning Jason Rose but not the Kansas student, please try to follow along: She punched up and the government tried to punish her for it. Jason Rose punched down and is getting his ass handed to him publicly, and deservedly, by a paying client. See the difference? Okay, good.

Before I finish I’d like to say something about Governor Brewer, whom I consider to be an awful person, based on things she’s done in office. Yes, Jan Brewer is in a powerful position so based on that she is fair game for mockery and derision by us peons. But punch up, people. I’m seeing way too many cracks about her appearance and age and gender slurs. When you go for the cheap shots, not only are you giving Brewer and her handlers yet another reason to portray her as a martyr and a delicate flower (while also the toughest governor in America who eats scorpions, don’t ask me how that works) but it’s neither funny nor imaginative. C’mon Arizona liberals, we’re better than that.

Create perfect Thanksgiving pies. Drive to Costco, select an apple, pecan, and pumpkin pie and pay for them. Then head to Fry’s or Safeway or Bashas for whipped cream and vanilla ice cream.

Argue effectively with your wingnut relatives. Many of y’all aren’t lucky like me. I’ll be feasting with a bunch of commie liberals tomorrow so the conversation will revolve around things like where to get good organic produce in Phoenix and what an appalling collection of dangerous morons the GOP Presidential Primary roster is. Those of you facing the unfortunate predicament of having to chow with your Fox News watching inlaws have a bigger challenge. I feel for you. Luckily, the interwebz provide a wealth of useful sources to help you help your brother in law to a giant cup of STFU.

MoveOn has the Top Five Fox Myths To Debunk This Thankgiving. Short, pithy, and substantiated statements to help you demolish myths about the Occupy Movement and the deficit.

Speaking of the deficit: Economist Dean Baker took NY Times privileged wanker extraordinaire David Brooks to task for falsely conflating Greece’s economic troubles with America’s. This has become a common bleat from the Right and Baker neatly lays out the case for why it’s idiotic and disingenuous to compare the two countries: 1. Greece has chronic structural debt problems that are totally unlike ours. 2. The US is a highly diverse economy (still) and our dollar is protected from inflationary pressures. 3. We have a sovereign currency, unlike Greece, which is a member of the EU. Greece is more analogous to Ohio than it is to the entire U.S.

“47% of Americans pay no taxes!” My suggestion is not to bother with the usual response about how everyone actually does pay a whole host of taxes (sales, payroll, etc). Make your brother in law defend his tax breaks! As I’ve explained here before, the increasing number of households paying no taxes is driven by stagnating wages but also in large part by exemptions and credits to parents. I cited conservative economist Keith Hennessey and here’s the link again: Why do so many Americans pay no income tax?

Fannie and Freddie totally caused the collapse!!1! This lie has been laid to waste by every sentient being who researched the matter for two minutes but it remains an article of faith with conservatives. Mother Jones debunked it, yet again, in response to Michele Bachmann last month:

The origination of subprime loans came primarily from non-bank lenders not covered by the [Community Reinvestment Act, a law pushing the two GSEs to purchase more loans in the secondary markets and thus expand access to housing loans to low-income neighborhoods];

The majority of the underwriting, at least for the first few years of the boom, were by these same non-bank lenders;

When the big banks began chasing subprime, it was due to the profit motive, not any mandate from the President (a Republican) or the Congress (Republican controlled) or the GSEs they oversaw;

Prior to 2005, nearly all of these sub-prime loans were bought by Wall Street—NOT Fannie & Freddie;

In fact, prior to 2005, the GSEs were not permitted to purchase non-conforming mortgages;

The change in FNM/FRE conforming mortgage purchases in 2005 was not due to any legislation or marching orders from the President (a Republican) or the the Congress (Republican controlled). It was the profit motive that led them to this action.

Hope this helps!