My "Will to Power" Post

I got a new newspaper job in mid-January, just in time for Sunday alcohol sales becoming a big issue in Georgia.  Many of my early columns dealt with the Sunday sales issue.

I ended up write a whole bunch of columns about Sunday alcohol sales, to the point I suspect my readers are sick and tired of hearing about the subject.  I think I'll content myself with writing columns about other relevant subjects until we get close to the fall vote in Johns Creek on whether to allow Sunday sales.

Here are the links, with some background material for each one:

This is a shock--I agree with Nathan Deal

This one was the first, around the time Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal announced he would sign a bill allowing local communities to vote on Sunday sales.  I supported Karen Handel against Deal in the governor's race, so the fact I was willing to back Deal was pretty darn significant.  I also decided to engage opponents of Sunday sales--most of whom base their position on their religion--on their own ground, to prove drinking alcohol is not something unholy and it is not in Christians' best interest to support state establishment of religion.

Continuing Sunday alcohol ban bad for the state

In this one, I made an argument in favor of allowing Sunday alcohol sales on secular grounds--open government (when the Republican caucus tried to bury the bill), tax revenue, and the like.  I also used a quote from Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle, whom I met at a Georgia Press Association function in the capital and asked about Sunday sales.

This one was the most popular in terms of Tweets and Facebook recommendations.

Both columns got me the attention of Georgians for Sunday Alcohol Sales, whose leaders asked for permission to send the columns to other newspapers in support of their cause.  I don't know if any of these ran in other newspapers, but Spalding County Commissioner Bob Gilreath did post my first column on his online newsletter/blog Griffin Journal.

Johns Creek can vote on Sunday sales this November

Eventually, thanks to Rich Sullivan and Georgians for Sunday Alcohol Sales, the Georgia House permitted a vote.  As I expected, the bill allowing Sunday sales passed.  Since the Senate had already passed it and Deal had promised to sign it, I figured it would be a done deal.

(That's not always a good idea, but this time it turned out all right.)

I shifted my focus to Johns Creek and why it would be a good idea to pass Sunday sales.

Sunday alcohol vote this year in residents' hands

The Johns Creek City Council discussed Sunday sales one evening but didn't take any action.  In response, I wrote the above column.

At the next meeting, the council members agreed to put Sunday alcohol sales on the ballot.  This led to the following column, the last I intend to write on the subject for awhile:

Johns Creek City Council's alcohol votes will benefit city

Hopefully the votes in Johns Creek and other communities and the events that follow will show that Sunday alcohol sales are not going to be destructive to the cities and counties that allow them and will not infringe on Christianity.

About the title of this post, it's an allusion to the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche.  Nietzsche discussed the "will to power," which according to the Wikipedia entry on the topic was in part the will to achieve.  Although I have no way of knowing the impact my writing had in getting Sunday sales passed at the state level, I do have it on good authority that my column exhorting people to tell the city council they wanted the chance to vote on Sunday sales was pivotal in getting it voted on.

I think I've helped accomplish something, even if in the grand scheme of things it's not that big a deal.

If any of you want to Facebook-recommend the above articles, that 'd be nice, although they're a little out-of-date now.  Definitely visit them, to increase the number of hits on the company web-site that come from here.

Moving On Up In the World...

I recently wrote a second column on Sunday alcohol sales in Georgia for the Johns Creek Herald.  The first column was an attempt to engage opponents of Sunday alcohol sales--who are primarily motivated by religion--on their own ground.  I pointed out that since Jesus turned water into wine, Sunday alcohol sales do not represent an infringement on the Sabbath, and that Christians should be leery of attempts to impose religious views on wider society due to past persecutions at the hands of pagans and rivals within Christianity.

This is a shock--I agree with Nathan Deal

This column takes a secular approach--I point out how the ban on Sunday alcohol sales deprives the state of needed tax revenue and how the Republicans in the Georgia Senate, who decided in a party caucus to not bring the bill to the floor rather than actually voting on it, are violating the principles of open government.

Continuing Sunday alcohol ban bad for the state

 Both of my columns were picked up by the Georgians for Sunday Alcohol Sales Facebook group, which organized a protest at the Georgia Capitol the week before last if I remember right.  Between that and the fact I posted both columns on the Facebook page of Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal's press secretary (who I figured would appreciate positive attention given to his boss, who said he would sign a bill to allow local votes), I've gotten a lot of Facebook recommendations and tweets.

Things got better.  Georgians for Sunday Alcohol Sales is conducting a media campaign outside of Metro Atlanta, where most of the opposition to allowing local votes on Sunday alcohol sales is based.  They called the other day asking for permission to use my column.  They're going to submit it to 300 radio stations and newspapers and give full credit and attribution.

Not only will this hopefully turn the tide in favor of allowing Sunday alcohol sales, but it will get my name out there and, since my publisher allows me to include my blog URL at the end of every column, more exposure here.

Life is good right now...

Two Opinion Columns I've Written

I've recently gotten a new job in the northern suburbs of Metro Atlanta, working for a chain of weekly newspapers.  As part of my job responsibilities, I will be writing a column for my paper twice a month.

Here's the first column, written about how I interviewed Fulton County Commissioner Liz Hausmann and took the opportunity to examine a whole of Western fiction at a local library.

http://www.northfulton.com/Articles-c-2011-02-03-185706.114126-sub-Interview-leads-to-book-find-at-Spruill-Oaks-Library.html

Here's the second column, which I posted online today and will be published in print this week.  It's about Sunday alcohol sales in Georgia and why local communities should have the chance to vote on allowing them.

http://www.northfulton.com/Articles-c-2011-02-15-185882.114126-sub-This-is-a-shock-I-agree-with-Nathan-Deal.html

I'm pleased with this one, since it's gotten 26 Facebook recommendations in a few hours and has been tweeted five times (I've only tweeted it once, so that means four people like it enough to pass it along).

Especially spiffy is that I'm allowed to put my blog link at the end of each column.  I don't think the first column attracted many readers here, but the second one has attracted eight already and it's only been a few hours.

John Monds and the Lesser of Two Evils

One common criticism of voting Libertarian, or for any third party, is that one is "throwing one's vote away" and the only realistic option is to vote for the lesser of two evils.

Firstly, I would wager that one is only throwing one's vote away if they do something absurd like write in Mickey Mouse or a candidate who isn't running. Otherwise, one's vote has an impact, even if that impact is helping a rival party.

(Voting Green tends to benefit Republicans; voting Libertarian tends to benefit Democrats.)

Secondly, in states with runoff elections for those who don't reach a certain electoral threshhold, one has a choice other than the lesser of two evils.

This WSB poll shows that neither Deal nor Barnes are polling above 50 percent.

http://www.wsbtv.com/politics/25192892/detail.html

If neither party gets more than a majority of the votes (50 percent plus one), it's runoff time.

My suggestion is that people who don't like Roy Barnes or Nathan Deal (and there are a lot of them) vote Libertarian John Monds. If Monds does well enough to force a runoff between Barnes and Deal, then it will be time to pick the lesser of two evils, since Monds will realistically not be among the top two finishers.

This will force the two of them to compete for Libertarian votes, which might affect their political platforms, and will strengthen the hand of the Libertarian Party in general.  After all, voting for a party that managed to force the two major parties into a runoff cannot be described as throwing one's vote away in the same manner that writing in Mickey Mouse is.

In turn, if the Libertarian vote is strengthened, the two major parties will alter their platforms to appeal to them.  Philosophically speaking, that would be easier for the Republican Party, since it strikes me as intellectually dishonest to support small government but at the same time support laws against victimless crimes that spawn big-government bureaucracy and abuses, like the Drug War or unnecessary foreign adventures.

John Monds and Why He Could Be Good for the GOP

I read about John Monds, the Libertarian candidate for the Georgia governorship, in the Atlanta Journal Constitution this morning.

Here's the article about him:

http://www.ajc.com/news/libertarian-candidate-john-monds-616835.html

Although voting for a third party with a similar position to an established party tends to benefit the established party's rival (Greens hurt Democrats; Libertarians hurt Republicans), the circumstances of this particular Libertarian candidate indicate he could do significant damage to the Democrats this time around.

For starters, the Democratic Party has been very strong among African-Americans for the last several decades.  Monds was a leader in the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and many African-Americans believe, rightly or wrongly, that the Republican Party is racist.  A black Republican could be branded a token, a sellout, or window-dressing, but Monds is not a Republican and he was the president of the Grady County NAACP.

Some African-Americans are already interested in him, for that reason:

http://dekalbganaacp.blogspot.com/2010/01/will-georgia-elect-its-first-black.html

Furthermore, I believe research has shown that African-Americans are incarcerated at a higher rate for drug crimes than whites are and it is the incarceration rate (and the consequent difficulty in getting jobs or education after being jailed) that has hurt the African-American community, particularly men, rather badly. 

Given how the Libertarian Party has historically been opposed to the War on Drugs, this position could help make Monds attractive to African-American voters (in addition to him being black and involved in the NAACP).

Also, of the two policy positions Monds takes in the article, one of them is a socially-liberal defense of allowing horse-racing, casino gambling, and Sunday alcohol sales in Georgia on the grounds that although he may not like them, it's not the state's job to enforce his moral notions.  I don't think socially-conservative members of the Georgia Republican Party, the ones who picked Nathan Deal over Karen Handel, are going to be defecting en masse to Monds due to this issue.

However, those who are leery of social conservatism but also leery of the Democratic candidate Roy Barnes due to his previous term might be willing to vote for Monds.  See the book The Emerging Democratic Majority and the strong showing of Karen Handel, a more socially-liberal Republican who did well in Metro Atlanta, where half the Georgian population lives.

In short, Monds might be able to keep the Democrats from making inroads among independents and could divert black votes from Barnes, weakening him but affecting the Republican Party less severely.  And since he is an effective campaigner--he got over a million votes running for Public Service Commissioner in a prior election--he could do some real damage.

Even if all he does is force a runoff, this would force the Democratic Party to spend more money on Georgia, money that could be spent elsewhere.

Nathan Deal: Vulnerable on Ethics

Somehow, my work e-mail address ended up on the mailing list for Eric Gray, a Georgia Democrat.  Here's the text of a press release he sent out:

Atlanta – Wednesday was an historic day for Georgia - for the first time, one of the most corrupt Members of Congress became a nominee for Georgia’s highest office.



Congressman Nathan Deal was listed by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), an independent watchdog group, as one of the most corrupt Members of Congress, sparking a Congressional ethics probe that forced him to resign his seat less than 5 months ago. In addition, the Congressional Office of Ethics said Deal may have violated up to six House ethics rules while in office.


“Congressman Deal ran away from Washington, thinking he could flee an ethics investigation,” Democratic Party of Georgia Chairwoman Jane Kidd said. “He’s mistaken if he thinks Georgia voters will let him find refuge under the Gold Dome. The last thing Georgia needs is Congressman Deal and his crooked past.


An Atlanta Journal Constitution investigative report revealed that while Rep. Deal was on the Federal payroll, his private business netted $1.4 million in four years thanks to a no-bid contract his company held with the State of Georgia.


“The choice in this election is clear: with Rep. Deal, you get a Washington, D.C. insider tainted by sweetheart deals and ethical corruption,” Kidd concluded. “With Roy Barnes you get an experienced leader who will promote transparency, end special interest favoritism and lead with honesty and integrity so we can make Georgia work again.”
 
Perhaps I should have blogged about this earlier, when it might have made some kind of difference, but I voted for Karen Handel for a reason when Eric Johnson (the one I voted for in the primary) didn't win.  Due to the whole no-bid contract situation, Deal is highly vulnerable on the ethical issue alone.  Barnes couldn't rag on Handel for not having a college degree without PO'ing a lot of people, but he certainly will be able to criticize Deal for having ethics problems.
 
Given the general public anger at incumbents, corrupt politicians, etc., Georgia Republicans have just given Roy Barnes a major advantage in the coming general election, an advantage the Democrats are already jumping on.  One hopes this will not be an election-winning advantage, since according to Johnson, the next governor will play a major role in redistricting.  Even if Barnes is himself superior to Deal (I haven't studied Barnes' positions), Barnes returning to the Gold Dome would be a major black eye for the Republican Party that tossed him out of the Gold Dome in the first place and would put the Democratic Party in a strong position for years to come.
 
On another note, I remember reading somewhere that Handel was the candidate of those more concerned with economics than social issues, with Deal being the reverse.  I also recall criticism of Karen Handel due to her more socially-liberal stances.  Thus, it is possible Deal won in part due to social conservatives winning out over economic conservatives.
 
Republicans would do well to read the book The Emerging Democratic Majority.  The U.S. is getting more socially liberal and if the Republican Party doesn't accomodate this trend, it risks electoral marginalization.  Many social-conservative stances aren't even small-government, like the War on Drugs.  That is more of an issue nationwide than in Georgia or the South, but it's going to affect us down here sooner or later.  After all, Handel, whose strength is in more-liberal Metro Atlanta as opposed to more-conservative rural parts of the state, nearly won the primary, and could have won if she'd asked for a recount (she had every right to do so).

Before someone accuses me of being some unprincipled sell-out hack, I don't want to see fiscal conservatism or a strong national defense (things far more important to me than most social-conservative positions) being dragged into the abyss by a social-conservative millstone, especially if it's the kind of social conservatism contradicts the "leave me alone" sort of government that Republicans should in theory support.

(A government big enough to confiscate alleged "drug dealers" assets without trial or mow down a 95-year-old woman because some dubious informant said he saw drugs at her house is big enough to confiscate your stuff or ventilate you on some other pretext.)