Arizona's Own Espresso Pundit

Talton Loses It

On November 15th The Republic's Jon Talton gave a speech at the Scottsdale Town hall in front of a large crowd that included Scottsdale Mayor Mary Manross.   The transcript shows that he spent much of his time riduculing the city  and by all accounts Talton completely lost it during the question and answer session.  Becky Fenger was there with a tape recorder and has provided a transcript. Here's her take on it.  And here's the entire speech with the more outrageous comments in bold. (Download the_entire_speech.doc )   

The transcript is really amazing and includes gems like this.

"There’s a lot of work left to be done. You may get there and you may not. In the current issue of BizAZ Magazine--- they’ve asked me to write a regular column---  my first column I call, “How Scottsdale Got It’s Groove Back.” Because when you look at where Scottsdale south of Bell, you know, the SOBs, was 6 years ago, it was in a mess. You were willing to give yourselves away to Steve Ellman for a Wal-Mart? Oh, but it would be a Scottsdale Wal-Mart. That’s different! You know, we’ll have employees on AHCCCS, but they’ll all wear $800 shoes."

"I think you have to have diversity and edge, even in Scottsdale. I mean, it’s nice to come over here and see all these white people, but I don’t think that will help you in the long run."

Talton knew he was crossing the line.  Check out this references to his "bosses."

"Now, DMB has assured me that I can go out there and lie in their parks if I want, and I am grateful for that, especially after word of this speech gets back to the big bosses and I’m out of a job."

Talton opened the floor for questions afterwards and that's when things got really tense.  Here's an exchange that I'm told sounds even more shrill on tape than it does in print.

AUDIENCE MEMBER 4: I’m sorry. I’m going back to what you said earlier about inclusive. Portland doesn’t seem very inclusive to me.

TALTON:  Have you been there?

AUDIENCE MEMBER 4:  Oh, yes, quite often.

TALTON:  Well, I have quite often, and to me it’s very inclusive. More so than the exclusive parts of Greater Phoenix. You are in a competition for talent. And they have talent by the boatload. But, I mean, I don’t want to get into some kind of arid argument about, you know, this Socialist wants us to be Portland. God, I wish! That’s not what’s going to happen here. You need… you need to keep your eye on the real challenges we face and the real opportunities we face. Because if you just get derailed on Portland, “You said Portland!” then you’re going to miss the point.

AUDIENCE MEMBER 4: You said it was a model.

TALTON: It has many wonderful model things.

AUDIENCE QUESTION #5 (George Knowlton): Let’s go back here a minute. You talk about Portland…

TALTON: Pay attention, Mister (to #4)

KNOWLTON: I lived in Oregon. The reason Portland is the way it is is because of an appointed crew that could not be stopped by anybody called the LCDC who literally stopped all development, and ruined…

TALTON: I love it!

KNOWLTON: …  thousands of people.

TALTON: I love it.

KNOWLTON: Those people would love to shoot you right now.

TALTON: Well, I’d shoot ‘em back, because I don’t…

KNOWLTON: You’d lose.

TALTON: Don’t make threats, moron.  I was taught to shoot by my mother.

(Audience laughter)

KNOWLTON:  But I’m telling you..

TALTON: Are you making threats?

KNOWLTON: No. I’m telling you…

TALTON: Are you threatening me?

KNOWLTON: What I’m telling you…

TALTON: Because, step up here if you want to threaten me.

KNOWLTON: What I’m telling you…

TALTON: Step up here if you want to threaten me.

KNOWLTON: If you’d shut up and listen…

TALTON: I’m not going to shut up and listen if you’re going to threaten me. If you’re going to sit there and threaten to shoot me….

KNOWLTON: What I’m trying to tell you is…

TALTON: (In a fake accent) “What I’m trying to tell you, boy, is that we’ve got our property rights and nobody is going to take”--  Look, let me tell you something, boy…

KNOWLTON: That’s exactly right. I have property rights.

TALTON: You’ve got what you want here, and it’s a disaster. Now, if you’re willing to be open to some other ideas for a half a second when you’re not making threats to people who you don’t even know…

KNOWLTON: Don’t have to.

TALTON: Oh, well, I know you too, brother.

KNOWLTON: When you threaten my property rights, and what they did in Oregon was all wrong.

TALTON:  Oh, yeah. Well, you got what you want.

KNOWLTON:  I left there.

TALTON: Why are you here?

KNOWLTON: A million and a half dollar store, I left there.

TALTON:  Why are you here? And you came down here, and you made this place better I’ll bet.

KNOWLTON: I’m trying hard.

TALTON: Can we have a few questions of people who actually might be interested in something?

The guy in the back. Do you want to shoot me?

AUDIENCE QUESTION #6:  (Inaudible)   

TALTON:  I don’t think you’re going to (get light rail), so that just means more transit money for everybody else. I wish you were more open minded about it.

AUDIENCE MEMBER #6: (Inaudible)

TALTON: I didn’t say it should. Well, I think that’s what you were hearing. You can’t pave and drive your way out of the future.

AUDIENCE MEMBER #6:  Well, I know you said that, but, who do you think would be riding this light rail?   

TALTON: I don’t know. People who would live, people who would live in your downtown.

AUDIENCE MEMBER #6: (Inaudible)

TALTON:  The Pearl District in Portland. The streetcar is wildly successful.

AUDIENCE MEMBER #6: (Inaudible)

TALTON:  OK. Then you and I are on the same wavelength.

Mayor, do you want to shoot me?                                                                                                                                                         

MAYOR MANROSS:  (Inaudible question #7)

TALTON:  What Phoenix most needs is private sector investment. And, you know, the early adopters of downtowns tend to be highly educated, affluent people, and Phoenix does not have enough of those. And so both of those are challenges. They’ll get there. It’s going to take a long time. You guys have that, potentially, and so that’s an advantage.

Is there anybody else? Ma’am?

Comments Policy

When I switched to this format, I mentioned that I was nervous about leaving the comments section open.  I have to say that I have generally been very pleased with the comments.  Although I don't agree with some of them, they have been intelligent and respectful.

However, I did not anticipate that folks would use the comments section to discuss events that are only tangentially related to my posts.  That's fine, unfortunately however, some of those comments are aimed at private individuals and are getting pretty personal. 

So, I think I'm going to make a policy change.  Let's not discuss private individuals.

Haney Wins

Rob Haney won the District 11 Chairman's seat by a wide margin.  Sonoran Alliance has excellent coverage here.

The Answer I've Been Looking For

Every Legislator wonders what happens when he's no longer elected.  Do I have all these friends because I get to vote on your bills or because you actually care about me?

I think that question has been answered.

There is a fundraiser for the Groscost Children Education Trust Fund TONIGHT from 5:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at the SRP Pera Club. There is no set contribution amount.

Political Junkies will know where the PARA Club is.  It will be worth the price of admission just to watch Russell Smoldon emcee the event.  I can only stay until 6:00, but I'm sure I get to see a lot of old friends and I'm looking forward to seeing Russell in rare form. 

If you need more info, send me an email. 

Crossing the Line

In the U.S., it is rare that someone in a position of authority makes and maintains a claim that is truly outrageous.  Policy in other parts of the world plays out in the full range of the political spectrum, but in the U.S. the David Dukes of the world disappear pretty quickly.  If you are going to, say, deny that the Holocaust occured, call for segregation or forced sterilization, you aren't going to last long in a position of responsibility in American Society.

The Republic's Linda Valdez has crossed the line from the provocative to the repugnant when she used her position as editorial writer as a platform to advocate in favor of some of the worst types of religious discrimination and anti semitism working its way across Europe.

The French said it straight up with their ban, which includes Islamic head scarves, Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses. They want to preserve France's secular foundations.

That's a good idea.

What?  Banning "Jewish skullcaps" is "a good idea"?   My gosh, Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan certainly couldn't get away with saying that.

If my kids came to me and said "Dad, why is it that people are allowed to wear head scarves and yarmulkes?"  I would respond patiently that our Constitution protects the rights of people who want to exercise their religion, so it would be unconstitutional to tell Jewish people that they can't wear their hats. 

I would add that even if it were OK to tell people they couldn't wear head scarves or "Jewish skullcaps"  It would be wrong to pass a law to stop them.  After all, that would be really intolerant of other people's beliefs and even though we are not Jewish, we should respect their feelings, ideas and culture. 

Linda Valdez actually addresses--and rejects--those arguments. 

Society can, however, impose limitations on it, just as freedom of speech is restricted for the sake of safety (Don't yell fire in a crowded room) and civility (You can't slander or libel your neighbor). Religion should be restricted when it offends human rights.

The guarantee of freedom of religion etched in the U.S. Bill of Rights was designed to prevent the kind of top-down religious persecution that drove so many early Colonists to the new world. It is a healthy approach. But people and society also need protecting from religion.

She then goes on to provide three examples of religions gone wild:  Warren Jeffs, The 9-11 terrorists and a congregation in New Mexico that wants to import an illegal hallucinogen for use in sacred ceremonies.

So much for Constitutional protection.  After all, if I can't yell fire in a theater, why should you be able to wear a yarmulke in public?  Especially since the guys who blew up the World Trade Center were religious too. 

She treats the tolerance issue even more dismissively.   In opposing the Netherlands' approach, one Muslim leader made a pitch for diversity. Ah, yes, diversity. That's one of those concepts that gets trotted out when it's convenient.

Yeah, the whole diversity thing is simply trotted out when it's convenient.  Like when you are a female with an Hispanic surname who rounds out the Republic Editorial board.  Convenient like that. 

After her diatribe on the constitution, polygamists and terrorists, Valdez reiterates her main point about the European quest to eliminate head scarves, Jewish skullcaps and large crosses.  She is unrepentant.

Which brings us back to Europe and the quest to keep religious exhibitionism from undermining civil society.

We are not only clear about her position, but now we also know the reason--religious exhibitionism undermines civil society.

Golly, I've often thought the same thing.  I was in Costco just the other day and a guy was browsing the book aisle while wearing a yarmulke and I thought to myself "Dude, that guy is undermining society.  There ought to be a law to make him take that thing off."  "Religious exhibitionism" is undermining society?  My gosh, that is completely unhinged.

I don't know what is more astonishing that Linda Valdez could write this intolerant piece of hate literature or that she was still working for the Republic the following day. 

And Now a Word From Our Sponsor

Folks continue to ask me when espresso pundit is going to accept advertising.  My response has been "Man, espresso pundit is about the message.  It's about truth and light.  It's about...dare I say it...The Art."  Then I thought about it for a while and said to myself:  "Dude, what are you NPR?  You have a mortgage and kids who like to wear shoes and stuff.  Forget the Art, take the money."

So if you have a message that you want to get to the espresso pundit readership, send me an email and we'll see if we can work something out. 

More on the Flying Imams

The Washington Times analyses the behavior of the Phoenix Imams.

Muslim religious leaders removed from a Minneapolis flight last week exhibited behavior associated with a security probe by terrorists and were not merely engaged in prayers, according to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials.

Passengers and flight attendants told law-enforcement officials the imams switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks and also found in probes of U.S. security since the attacks -- two in the front row first-class, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin.

"That would alarm me," said a federal air marshal who asked to remain anonymous. "They now control all of the entry and exit routes to the plane."

Here's some commentary from Hugh Hewitt contributor Dean Barnett.

I KNOW I’M LATE TO WRITING ABOUT this, but I still can’t think about the incident with the flying Imams last week without getting angry. The more you consider the facts, the more apparent it becomes that the Imams were serving as provocateurs. As everyone knows by now, shortly before the Imams boarded their plane to Los Angles, they gathered at the gate in Minneapolis to do their evening prayers while offering a surfeit of Allah Akbars.

It is inconceivable that the Imams were unaware that their prayer ritual would scare the stuffing out of their fellow-passengers. Since we know that Islamophobia is actually a fear and a not particularly irrational one especially when boarding an airliner, the Imams were at best insensitive.

But when you consider the facts that a few of the Imams requested extra-long seatbelts (that they didn’t need) and engaged in a loud dialogue condemning America’s role in Iraq, it’s obvious that the Imams had mischief on their minds. For whatever reason, they deliberately intended to unnerve the plane’s other passengers. One can only wonder, to what ends? Would they really get such a kick out of making the other passengers terrified for four hours? I know Shar’ia doesn’t allow much in the way of fun, but that seems kind of desperate.

Media Manipulation 101

Here's a great little technique to spot media bias.  Whenever there is an article about two people and one of them is labeled "conservative" check to see what the other one is labeled.   You will find that they other party is never labeled "Liberal" and rarely labeled at all. 

Then a funny thing happened.  Liberal became a dirty word but conservative got cool.  That's why Republicans write "conservative" on their signs and liberals don't write anything on their signs.  So the media had to come up with a new way to subtly single out conservatives in a way that didn't make them sound so cool.  Right wing, hard right and far right are too obvious and don't fit the style books.  "Neo" worked for a while until reporters saw the Matrix and figured out that "Neo" means "new."  (Although many of them think it means "The One.")

They were stuck for a while, but the latest iteration is "Ultra."  Here's a great example from the Tribune's Paul Giblin.

"Specifically, Kyl was a tough opponent. And despite his ultraconservative positions on most issues, he presented an image of a reasoned and likeable politician who has remained clear of careerstaining mistakes. Plus, Kyl’s attack commercials against Pederson were crushing."

That's the ticket.  Kyl's opponent had $11 million to get his message out but Kyl won convincingly despite the fact that he is "ultraconservative" on "most" issues.  Really?  "Ultra" as in "radical, extreme, far beyond the norm"?  And that actually modifies "Conservative."   Is the man who was just overwhelmingly reelected to the US Senate a radical extremist on "most" issues.  That's a serious charge.  So Mr. Giblin why don't you name a handful of issues in which Jon Kyl is not a traditional Conservative, he's an "ultraconservative."  Then explain why your newspaper would endorse such a radical extremist. 

Is Pederson an ultra liberal?  No, Pederson is just "Pederson."  Napolitano is the "Popular Democratic Gov."  Bill Clinton is just the "Former President."  What, Janet wasn't elected despite being ultra liberal on most issues?

Kyl and Pederson each accused the other of supporting amnesty.  However notice that Kyl's commercials were "attack" commercials.  Does Pederson attack?  No Pederson "counters."

Initially, he decided to ignore the attack, then chose to counter it by painting Kyl as an amnesty supporter himself, based on Kyl’s comments 20 years ago about the same 1986 law.

Notice that Kyl presented "an image" of  "a reasoned and likeable politician."  Kly's not actually "reasoned" or "likeble," it's just an image.  That's because he's an ultraconservative radical extremist who fooled you.  After all, you are a sucker. 

That's the way it's done folks.  A few choice words, a few comparisons and the reader is disappointed that the mean old extremist beat up the nice developer. It takes natural talent, a J school education and a sleepy editor to work magic like that.

The War on Christmas Continues

This just out from the Governor's office. 


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, November 27, 2006

-ADVISORY-

-GOVERNOR TO LIGHT HOLIDAY TREE-

Governor Napolitano will turn on the lights of the Holiday Tree located in the lobby of the Capitol Executive Tower. At the time of the lighting ceremony, Governor Napolitano will declare December “Hope for the Holidays” Month in support of increased awareness of the statewide foster care system. The theme of Tuesday’s program is Hope for the Holidays – Sharing your heart, opening your home, offering your help and changing a lifetime.


  DATE:   Tuesday, November 28, 2006
 
  TIME:     10:15 am   
         
  LOCATION:   Executive Tower Lobby 1700 W. Washington   
         
  YOU WILL SEE:   Governor Napolitano will light the State Holiday Tree. Children within the State’s foster care system and representatives from adoption and foster supporting agencies will assist her.   
         
         
         

I don't Know But Pat Cantelme

Last Sunday, the Tribune's Mark Flatten and Dennis Welch stunned the political community with their revelation that the Governor had used an executive order to give exclusive authority to grant state-authorized student loans to two of her closest political allies.  The current and immediate past Presidents of the Firefighter's Union, Billy Shields and Pat Cantelme, have no experience with student loan administration. 

It's been a week and all we have are more questions. 

I got a copy of the organizational filing that the company made at the Arizona Corporation Commission and discovered two interesting points that haven't been mentioned in the media.  First, the bylaws state that the company was organized "at the request of the State of Arizona."

What?  It was formed at the "request of the State of Arizona"?  What does that mean?  Who requested it?  That doesn't make it look like Cantelme and Shields went to the Governor's office with a great idea.  It looks like the Governor's office went to THEM.  Is that what happened?  Did the Governor's office ask Shields and Cantelme to form this corporation and then grant them exclusive authority to issue $100 million worth of bonds annually?

In fact, the Tribune article says that the Governor signed the executive order in December of 2004.  The Corporation was formed on December 14th of 2004.  It's clear that the order was in process before the corporation was actually formed.  No wonder Shields and Cantelme said they formed it at "the request of the State of Arizona."

The Governor steadfastly denies that she knew Shields and Cantelme were involved in the Corporation.  However, the organization documents show that Shields and Cantelme ARE the organizaton.  There are only three board members, Shields, Cantelme and their lawyer. 

Is it possible that the Governor's staff would concoct such a plan and leave her in the dark?  Come on.   Can you imagine being on the Governor's staff and creating a plan like this and not telling her?  The person who crafted this would have to go way out of his way to hide it from her.  That's unbelievable.  If it's true, then someone did her a huge disservice.  This is past non-feasance.  This is malfeasance.  This may be criminal. 

In fact, the Governor's office is beginning to get the message that this is serious. According to the Trib, the Governor's office has conceded that the deal needs to be investigated. 

even the governor's office is suspicious of a trade-off between ADELA and Cantelme's marketing and advertising company,

"That is something I have asked the Arizona Department of Commerce to look at," L'Ecuyer said. "It is a situation we need to have more information on."

The State Commerce Department?  What, they were too busy at the Department of Motor Vehicles?  Give me a break.  The state Commerce Department is the most political agency of any Administration and its not known for its investigative ability.  Conceding that there needs to be an investigation and then choosing her own political appointees to conduct the investigation using an agency that has very little investigative ability is the worst of both worlds. 

Who would best be able to carry out the investigation?  The Attorney General would be an obvious choice.  However, Shields and Cantelme are as close to Goddard as they are to Napolitano, so he has an obvious conflict.  That leaves either the County Attorney or the Auditor General.  Both have the capacity to investigate and neiter are beholden to the Governor.  Since her office is calling for the investigation, she should have no problem with an independent investigator.

Finally, here's an interesting media note. 

The company that received this exclusive franchise is known by its abbreviation "AHELA".  That's a unique name and makes it easily searchable.  In fact, if you put AHELA into Google News, you will get plenty of hits.  A great feature of  Google News is that you can specify a source.  For example, if you search "AHELA Tribune".  You will get links to all of the Tribune's stories on the arrangement. 

If you specify the "AHELA Republic", you get this:  "Your search - ahela republic - did not match any documents."   Come on guys the election is over, you can cover the Napolitano Administration now.  Really, it's OK.