Tucson Citizen.com
Carolyn's Community - Our sense of group togetherness and "community" in Tucson

Living Liberally in Arizona

by on Jul. 28, 2009, under Life, Politics

Six chapters of Drinking Liberally exist in Arizona– in Flagstaff, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Sierra Vista, Tempe and Tucson. Drop by the Tucson one, every Thursday at 7 p.m. at The Shanty, 401 E. 9th Street (at 4th Avenue), to join in with this group which advertises itself as “promoting democracy one pint at a time.”

Drinking Liberally is (paraphrased from their websites):”An informal, inclusive progressive social group” of “like-minded, left-leaning individuals” who need a place to discuss political issues. They encourage all to “just come and learn from peers, trade jokes, vent frustration and hang out in an environment where it’s not taboo to talk politics.” They also believe that “the idea of an American Republic was born in the taverns of the American colonies. The dreams that shape tomorrow’s America will also be born in our taverns, among everyday folks.” Hence, the locales, in taverns across America.

This week’s topic is focusing on your opinions on local, state and national issues. Sometimes they have guest speakers, mostly politicians or community leaders. Although the group does meet in a bar/restaurant, they do not encourage drunk driving by any means.

Drinking Liberally is a project of Living Liberally, “an organization which builds progressive communities through social networks and events. Living Liberally also runs Laughing Liberally, the political comedy project; Screening Liberally, a series of socially-conscious films; Eating Liberally, events with good gab and great grub; and Reading Liberally, book tours for progressive authors. (Living Liberally is a New York-based LLC, led by a team in NYC and fueled by the energy of hundreds of volunteers and partners around the country.)”

Whew, that’s a lot of liberals and progressives isn’t it? Check out the website for this community of liberal thinkers: www.livingliberally.org.

Whatever your political bias may be, consider a visit with these folks who do welcome all viewpoints. I’ve dropped by on occasion to drink my cranberry juice and talk politics, being as I used to be a legislative aide to a powerful U.S. Senator on Capitol Hill in my younger days. Remind me to tell you about the time in D.C.when I spoke with actor John Denver on the phone….
but not sure how liberal he was.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 28th, 2009 at 9:34 am and is filed under Life, Politics. Tags for this post: , , , , , , , , , , , . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

RSS feed for this post (comments)
  • azmouse

    Sounds great, except for the ‘left-leaning’ part.

    • Ado

      I gotta agree azmouse, 100%.  Dialogue sounds great, but can’t help but wonder just how long it will be before they add another subgroup, like Stoned Liberally.

  • sechem

    “an organization which builds progressive communities through social networks and even”

    they claim to mimic the Republic of yesterday being founded in taverns in American colonies. Then proclaim to lean left and what to promote the “progressive” agenda.

    The founding fathers in those American colonial taverns would have taken, and did in some cases, the liberal/progressive out and tar and feathered them. If they would have returned (doubtful) they would have been hung or shot.

    Our founding fathers were neither liberals nor progressives. They were staunch conservatives.

    The idea of aligning the liberal progressive with the venue of the Republic formed in American colonial taverns is just another way to try to malign our true roots.  

  • leftfield

    I agree that the so-called “founding fathers” were likely non-progressive, except I do not offer it as a compliment.  The American Revolution was intra-class warfare, not inter-class warfare.  It was one group of rich, white males fighting another group of rich, white males with no intent towards a wider liberation.

    • sechem

      and yet, you and all liberal/progrssives have benefited from this white male struggle.

      wider liberation ……… such as, after the revolution every tom, dick and harry tried to get here and still do ……… by the millions.

      for such a terrible white male dominated sexist, racist place there sure seems to be a lot of people wanting to get here.

      • leftfield

        I wonder if any0ne ever said to the founding fathers, “If you don’t like it here, why don’t you leave?”  After all, it is very popular amongst conservatives today; I wonder if it was popular then.  I imagine they would have ignored the suggestion anyway.  The temerity of a people who would come to a place, find ten million inhabitants at home, and then declare the place “discovered” and henceforth their property must be unlimited.

        • sechem

          those who said leave if you aren’t happy were called the british.

          thier answer came in the form of lead. it was a NO, you leave.

      • leftfield

        ergo, a system of racist patriarchy must be a good thing, right?

        • sechem

          every society and/or nation was formed the same way. some else took it away from another.
          at one time all of europe, africa, etc. was comprised of city kingdoms until one king wnadered out and conquered another and so on.
          if you really want to get back to the roots, then all nations need to decompose back to the original status.

          and btw, this is true in africa, asia, middle east, north america, south america …………. all places

          it is not a white male thing ……… it is who is the strongest today thing. always has been and always will be.

          sorry about the mistakes ……… typing with one hand in a cast.

          one last thing ……….. there were approx. 350,000 native americans in all of north/central america at the time of the white settler invasion. not million as the liberal/progressive re-write of history would have us to believe.

          • leftfield

            This is known as the  “inevitability of the status quo” argument.  It is similar to the “best of all possible worlds” argument put forth centuries ago to shore up the existing system at that time and brilliantly lampooned in Voltaire’s “Candide”.  I would certainly agree though, that all modern history is the history of the struggle between capital and labor (I am “liberally” paraphrasing your comments here).  

            The American power elite that you support takes a back seat to no one when it comes to rewriting history in their own image and to their liking. 

            And just who is advocating staying stuck, or even going backward?  I advocate we move forward.  It’s long overdue. 

    • sechem

      and btw ……….. the british supporters of tyranny would be today’s liberal/progressive ……. ya think?

  • Critic

    Keep writing, love it.

  • sechem

    the american power elite?

    i am not advocating going back. neither am i advocating taking credit for or apologizing for the actions of others, present day or past.

    but to bottle up the wrongs of the world, especially this nation in particular,  in the “white male dominated whatever”  is an excuse for those that reap the benefits of this nation and then go home and try to absolve their own guilt for whatever off on someone else.

    whatever this country is today, the good and the bad, was started by the founding fathers. men who stood in the path of the most powerful nation of the time and rebelled violently against it.

    even the freeing of the slaves was at the cost of over 600,000 lives …… 95% of whom were white males on both sides. Over 300,000 died in the fight to free the slaves. were they white male racists?

    you know, those big bad bullies …….. the source for all wrong ………. lives that absolutely no good can come from.
    you wrap the founding fathers up as a pack of white male racists and yet,  i do not see liberals or progressives rejecting the freedoms that they have. in fact, they are usually the first ones to scream “my rights, my rights” which were defined and bled for by the white male racists they so quickly decry.

  • http://www.mcnittbros.com Ben McNitt

    The argument that the Founders were a just bunch of rich white conservaties (combining threads from two authors above) is just silly.

    The Declaration’s concept of self government (a radical concept to conservatives of the time) formed to promote the inalienable rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” was and remains a progressive standard. The idea that the pursuit of happiness is an object of government was unheard of before the Declaration.

    The Founders did construct a federal government under the Constitution that while embracing democratic representation, deliberately placed conservative breaks on runaway democracy and provided for protection of property, as well as tacitly accepting slavery. They then added the Bill of Rights, championed at the time by such liberals as Jefferson, including freedom of speech and of the press which remain to this day bulwarks of progressive/liberal thinking.

    The Founders’ genius was how they integrated both conservative and liberal principals in creating the Republic. It is historically inacurrate and personally arrogant to argue that any one stream of political thought has a monopoly on truth or wisdom. The Founders knew this. It’s a shame that not more of us today recognize it.

  • sechem

    i am not arguing that any one thought process has the all the answers.

    i am however keenly aware that the liberal/progressive thought process and belief dismisses the founding fathers as a pack of arrogant, white male racists/sexists. they also continue to define the constitution as an ever changing entity that can be redefined as need for any liberal/progressive whim of the time.
    i refute both as an attempt by a group that wishes to reap all the benefits of the founding father’s legacy and yet decry the process by which the benefits were derived.
    if our freedom was in fact the result of a white male domination of all races and both sexes, the result of the destruction of other societies, then they should throw off these rights as tainted. they should decline to profit from personal freedoms and a free market. they should embrace the chains of slavery and endorse the rule of tyranny that once was.
    for any person who profits from the enslavement of others is in fact as evil as the enslaver.
    instead, they roll in the sweet smell of freedom and profit from its benefits. they line their pockets in a capitalistic system whose framework was put into place by the very men they curse and deplore.
    they are in fact, the definition of hypocrisy. they degrade the founders of the freedom they willingly enjoy each and every day.
     

  • http://www.mcnittbros.com Ben McNitt

    Sechem -

    It’s unfortunate you feel compelled to demonize those who hold opinions different than yours.

    I’ve been a liberal/progressive my entire adult life and a great admirer of our Nation’s Founders – a trait that somehow you think is exclusive to conservatives. Your rant about some amorpous group obsessed with white male racists/sexists is just that – a rant.

    There’s a legit Constitutional argument about original intent v. living document. When TR as president called for federal regulation of food safety the conservatives of his day attacked the proposal as an assault on free enterprise that had no Constitutional justification and certainly could not be validated by the Framers’ intent. But Congress passed TR’s plan, the first step to national food, drug, worker safety, and environmental regulation that successive Supreme Courts have upheld under the Commerce clause – one of the more obvious examples of the living document argument. Could living document justification be taken too far – yes, of course, just as original intent was abused in the Dred Scott case. The tension between these viewpoints is a major factor contributing dynamism to our society. You’d be surprised – people with different views than yours can be just as patriotic and concerned with core values as you profess to be.

    As to the original post about Drinking Liberally – sounds like my kind of people.

  • sechem

    not a rant ben ………… i use the posts by leftfield who is a prime example of the liberal/progressive that i have met and i have met many. they rant about the white male whatever.

    as far you being as liberal/progressive your entire adult life that is a great admirer of our Nation’s Founders, you better catch up with the new breed of liberal/progressive because you and them are not only not on the same page, your aren’t even in the same book.

    i only demonize demons and the current crop of liberal/progressives fit the definition.

    the liberal/progressives i know are spewing anti-Americanism, believe the founding fathers were criminals, and rant about our troops being war criminals, and on and on.

    you will note that under the living document i state “whim of the time” such as free speech as in eliminating with hate speech legislation by defining hate speech as anything that they don’t agree with. after all time have changed since the arrogant white mail racists wrote it …… right?

    they admire nothing about our heritage and embrace socialism with a passion. decry free enterprise (even though they get rich off it), etc.

    last post for the day for me ……….. the cast is starting to be a problem. broke 3 bones in the hand and 3 fingers.
    sounds if you and I are at least in the same book and maybe on the same page in some areas.
     

    • leftfield

      Don’t taint Ben with the same brush with which you paint me.  I am decidedly not a liberal, although I do consider myself progressive.  No,  I am just an out and out Commie, sechem.  As such, I do believe many things that are probably anathema to you and Ben alike.   Even so, I agree with Ben that this country is a lot better off because of the  ”tension” he refers to between differing philosophies than it would be if either you or I were King.  At the same time, I stand by my assertion that when the founders said “…all men are created equal…” they meant, in fact, white males who owned property. 

      As to the issue of racism, I am sure I differ in my opinion from both you and Ben.  Since I cannot speak for either of you, I can only say that my opinion is that racism and other forms of oppression and inequality are inherent to capitalism.   Am I way out of line to guess that you disagree? 

      As to Anti-Americanism, who gets to define what it means to be a true American?  If you think that is your privilege, then I’ll go out on a limb and guess that you believe I’m “anti-American”.  However, I do not concede that you get to define that for me.  I consider myself the best kind of American, just as Ben does, although I disagree with most liberals as to the best direction for this country. 

      I don’t believe the overwhelming majority of troops are war criminals.  I tend to view them as victims.  I do believe that the people who sent them to war are criminals though, and my version of justice requires that they be tried for their crimes.

      You and I are never going to agree, sechem.  We could probably argue for hours over the color of the sky.    

       

      • radmax

        Move to Darfur, not many elite white guys doing the killing there. Not much hope for a revolution that brings freedom either. In all of revolutionary history Lefty-which would you choose as the most beneficial, forward moving(albeit painfully slow sometimes) emancipation?

        • radmax

          PS-If you say Cuba-it’s on commie…got a little research I’ve been saving for you.

        • leftfield

          I guess my favorites are all the countries that gained independence from colonialism after WWII, the defeat of the Americans in Vietnam, the overthrow of the French Monarchy and the current movement towards socialism in Latin America.  I will confess that there is a special place in my heart for Cuba.  I hope to travel there before I leave the planet.  So, I guess I’m asking for it; lay it on me.

          • radmax

            First of all, it was the best of times-but mostly a horrific nightmare for the French people. They did get Napoleon out of it though???…I’ll give ya Vietnam, always a big mistake to back a corrupt despotic regime, without the guts to go all the way. Kickin’ butts on BOTH sides of the DMZ. ‘Friend’ and foe. Hugo is on borrowed time, only so much you can stand from an El Presidente for life. I see a popular uprising or military coup. Let me ‘paste’ a little reality on ya about your Cuban comrades: 

            Fidel Castro embracing former Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev. By the end of 1960, all opposition newspaper had been closed down and all radio and television stations were in state control. Moderates, teachers and professors were purged.In any given year, there were about 20,000 dissents held and tortured under inhuman prison conditions. Groups such as homosexuals were locked up in internment camps in the 1960s, where they were subject to medical-political “re-education”. One estimate is that 15,000-17,000 people were executed. The Communist Party strengthened its one-party rule, with Castro as the supreme leader.Fidel’s brother Raul Castro became the army chief. Loyalty to Castro became the primary criteria for all appointments. In September 1960, the regime created a system known as Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDR), which provided neighborhood spying. In the 1961 New Year’s Day parade, the Communist administration exhibited Soviet tanks and other weapons. Eventually the tiny island nation built up the second largest armed forces in Latin America, second only to Brazil. Cuba became a privileged client-state of the Soviet Union
            Human rights
            Main articles: Human rights in Cuba and Censorship in Cuba
            The Cuban government has been accused of numerous human rights abuses, including torture, arbitrary imprisonment, unfair trials, and extrajudicial executions (a.k.a. “El Paredón”).
            The Human Rights Watch reports that the regime “represses nearly all forms of political dissent” and that “Cubans are systematically denied basic rights to free expression, association, assembly, privacy, movement, and due process of law”. Groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have issued reports on Cuban prisoners of conscience. Cuba is “the second biggest prison in the world for journalists” after the People’s Republic of China. The Ladies in White opposition group received the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought from the European Parliament in 2005.
            Citizens cannot leave or return to Cuba without first obtaining official permission, which is denied.
            Cuban regime operates an extensive system of censorship similar to North Korea and it ranked on the bottom of the the Press Freedom Index 2008 compiled by the Reporters Without Borders. The censorship limits accuracy of information about Cuba. The media in Cuba is operated under the Communist Party’s Department of Revolutionary Orientation, which “develops and coordinates propaganda strategies”.
            The authorities have called Internet “the great disease of 21st century”. As a result of computer ownership bans, computer ownership rates are among the world’s lowest. Right to use Internet is granted only to selected people and these selected people are monitored. Connecting to the Internet illegally can lead to a five-year prison sentence. PS-you get more jail time for killing a cow(beef is scarce)than a human being. Some paradise. [numerous sources]

  • sechem

    ok … this is my last post of the day. hand swelling. typing becoming a problem.

    we have gotten way of course f the original post but, ok ……………

    i am not “tainting” ben with you. i ended the last post to him with at least a consideration that he and i might have something in common. as for you and i, if the commie statement was in fact factual ……. then you and i are as different as night and day.

    let’s be clear on a few points though …….. “all men are created equal”
    they did not mean women ………. sexist, yes by today’s teachings …… then no it was standard. make it right, no.
    they did not mean non-white …….. racist, yes by today’s teachings …… then no, it was standard. make it right, no.

     these facts, however, do not belittle, demean or dismiss the things that they accomplished that established this great nation. since you are a “commie” and i am an extreme Christian right winger, no we will never agree.**************************************************************************************
    i will say this though ……… there is huge discontent with the direction of this nation and there is a storm coming. for those to refuse to accept it and for those to naïve to realize it, reality will force the issue. storm? at the end of this whatever you want call it from the current regime in power, a day of reckoning will come when, as the commentator paul harvey said many, many years ago, it is going to be interesting when 50% of the population says feed and cloth me and the other 50% says NO. that day is just around the corner. obama and his socialism is hurrying it along. it seems that the liberal/progressive is not paying attention. however, obama and his regime are paying attention. as an example  ……….. prior to obama’s election there were 85+ million gun owners, today there are over 90+ million. ammunition is on back order across this nation. hand guns are on back order across this nation. black guns, so called assault weapons, are on back order across this nation. people by the millions are arming themsleves. gun and ammunition manufacturese are woring over time. for what? answer ……… when 50% of the population says feed and cloth me and the other 50% says NO not idle data ………. factual. obama’s black boots went on a fact finding mission to determine the source of the back orders and they found ……… american gun owners, by the millions and growing.  obama’s election has in fact in flamed those that still hold dear this nation and its foundind father’s ideals ……… freedom. they have been dismissed by the liberal/progressive as a radical few …………. but ask yourself this, how does a radical few bown 300 million firearms and an estimated 15 billion rounds of ammunition?obam has a huge, huge civil problem brewing and he knows it.
     my point ………….. there is a storm coming.am i promoting violence ……. no. do i ocndone violence …… no.

    i just follow the bread crumbs and they are not leading to grannie’s house.

    btw ……….. this was what was discussed in the colonial american taverns. just prior to the revolution.

  • sechem

    post is jumbled.

    hand is tired.

  • leftfield

    Well, rad, I am willing to admit that life in Cuba probably does fall a little short of paradise on earth.  At the same time, I don’t believe anything printed in the capitalist media about conditions in Cuba.  I think I would like to go there and decide for myself instead.  I do respect groups like Amnesty International and I believe they have no dogs in the fight. 
    I have to wonder what things might have been like for Cuba without American interference.  Would Castro have allowed elections?  I don’t know.  I do know from what he has written that he will allow no perceived deviation from the path to socialism.  I wouldn’t either, were I in his shoes.  The everpresent danger from the US is too real.

    I do know that homosexuality is no longer a crime in Cuba.  Interestingly, prior to Stalin, discrimination based on sexual orientation was outlawed in the USSR.  

    I’m afraid that neither societies with an capitalistic nor a socialistic orientation have a franchise on tyranny.  The difference to me is that I believe that there is hope for a future of equality and justice under socialism.  I don’t believe that there is hope for that future under capitalism.  I could be wrong.  So could you.   

    • radmax

      I HATE pasting stuff Lefty, but sometimes you get caught up in the bliss of ideological doctrine and forget the living realities.

  • http://www.blogforarizona.com Michael Bryan

    Well, it seems Drinking Liberally can spawn interesting discussion even here. Imagine how fun, and more productive, such a discussion would be face-to-face with beer? We’d love to have all of you visit with us at Drinking Liberally.
    We generally are liberal in sense given by the contemporary America political lexicon, but what we do is in the classically liberal tradition of the Founding Fathers: a civil society that is based on a vigorous contest of ideas in the public market-place. Too frequently, our political process is cramped by what fits in a 30 second ad or a sound byte, and untested by real debate with those who don’t agree with you. At Drinking Liberally, a lively discussion between differing views is encouraged and celebrated. We frequently have conservatives, liberatarians, and greens visit with us. And that is very much in the spirit of this nation’s founders.
    Hope to see some of you there!
    Michael Bryan, founder of the Tucson chapter of Drinking Liberally

  • Carolyn Classen

    Thank you for all your comments on this blog. I agree with founder Michael Bryan who’s extended his personal invitation to attend Drinking Liberally tomorrow night at The Shanty.   Welcome all who want to discuss politics.

  • Carolyn Classen

    Update: change of locale of Drinking Liberally effective tonight, to Elle A Wine Country Restaurant, 3048 E. Broadway, just west of Country Club on the SW corner.

«
»