Arizona's Own Espresso Pundit

Tribune Reporter Showers Nude

When a reporter wants to write a hit piece, the most effective weapon in his arsenal is called the "Nude Shower Story."  The reporter writes a breathless article and exposes the fact that Sen. Smith showers while nude. The technique is powerful because the article is clearly true and the target is given plenty of opportunity to defend himself.  So Senator Smith is reduced to admitting that he does indeed shower nude but that it's a common practice and although it sounds bad, it's not unethical or illegal. 

The reporter will concede that showering nude is common, legal and ethical but will throw in a lot of wild quotes from people who think showering nude could lead to bad things, or is a symptom of Global Warming and he will point out that some historians believe that Hitler showered nude.

Inevitably, Nude Shower stories are self debunking.  They are like the string games that my kids play; it looks like there is a big knot, but if you pull on it, the knot disappears and you are left with a straight string.   

Nude Shower stories are so flagrantly unfair that they are usually spiked in the editing process, however, one occasionally sneaks through.  That's what happened to Representative Steve Yarbrough when this story appeared A1 above the fold in last Monday's Tribune.   

Lawmaker’s bills aid other job

As a state lawmaker, Rep. Steve Yarbrough has pushed for new laws that bring in big money for certain charities. And as the head of one of those charities, he also has reaped the financial benefits of those laws.

Wow, that sounds really bad.  Tribune reporter Dennis Welch spends 12 full paragraphs discussing the potential millions that Mr. Yarbrough's bills have raised for various charities while Yarbrough attempts to explain that he doesn't have a conflict. 

Then Welch gets to paragraph 13--the key paragraph:

Legally, Yarbrough’s right; there’s no conflict. Under state law, lawmakers are allowed to vote on and sponsor legislation relating to any organizations they are involved in, even if they stand to profit.

That's right.  Yarbrough has no conflict.  So why is there a story?   Welch makes a big production about a huge knot, but when he pulls on it, there's nothing but string. 

The admission that Yarbrough has no conflict is not the end.  After all, the reporter still hasn't reminded his readers that Hitler showered nude just like Senator Smith does. 

Peggy Kerns, director of the Center for Ethics in Government at the National Conference of State Legislatures, agrees lawmakers should be careful when backing bills they could benefit from.

“Nobody wants a Jack Abramoff scandal in their Legislature,” she said, referring to the former Washington lobbyist at the center of a high-profile corruption case.

That is a brilliant journalistic technique.  Welch is a genius.  Kerns says lawmakers should be "careful."  Is there anyone who disagrees with that statement?  Is Welch saying that Yarbrough wasn't careful?  After all, Welch has already admitted that Yarbrough didn't have a conflict. 

The quote gives Welch the ability to bring disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff into the story.  Abramoff  defrauded Indian tribes out of nearly $85 million which he used to give illegal gifts and campaign contributions in exchange for votes and legislation.  You know, just like Yarbrough...

Another feature that makes "Nude Shower stories" so devastating is their lack of context.  Not only does Yarbrough not have a conflict, but his actions are also common.   Arizona has a part time citizen Legislature.  Lawmakers are expected to have other jobs and they are often given Committee assignments that reflect those jobs.  Farmers serve on the Agriculture Committee; Lawyers serve on the Judiciary Committee and teachers serve on the Education Committee.  I'm a CPA and I served on the budget sub-committee that funded the State Board of Accountancy.

Ironically, if Welch had written a fair story about legislators whose votes benefit their jobs, his targets would, of course, have been Democrats.  Republicans work in the private sector, killing baby seals and burning villages on behalf of multinational corporations.  It's the Democrats who work for quasi governmental agencies that rely on government funds to help the poor and down trodden.

Reps. Thrasher and Pancrazi are both teachers who advocate for higher teacher salaries.  Bradley, Lujan, Hershberger, Aguirre, McCune-Davis and Lopez work for social service agencies that receive substantial public funding.  They are passionate about their issues and support them in the legislature just like Yarbrough does with issues he's passionate about.  Just like I did when I was in the House.

The final technique that makes a Nude Shower Story so effective is finding a guy who takes plenty of nude showers who will not only condemn them, but will also offer to prohibit them.   

Even some lawmakers here want to tighten up the state’s conflict-of-interest laws.

“They way the laws are written now, the only court you can prosecute someone for a conflict of interest is in the court of public opinion,” said Rep. Ed Ableser, D-Tempe. He went on to say he was going to introduce legislation next year to guard against future conflicts.

What?  Ed "Margaritaville" Ableser wants to be known as a reformer? 

Ableser's official bio says that he has been "a school-based mental health counselor since 2002, working with families and troubled youth at two schools in Phoenix."  Ableser has also sponsored bills like HB 2541 which greatly expand access to mental health insurance.  I bet that after a few margaritas Ableser even showers in the nude. 

So what's the real story?  Why the hit piece?  It's tough to tell why a reporter picks on someone, but I think we have clue from the story itself. 

The push for school tax credits is part of an overall effort to expand the so-called “school choice” to parents who can’t otherwise afford to send their children to private schools. Opponents argue such measures hurt public schools and their students by taking away much needed money.

So called "school choice"?  Reporters tip their hands when they put "so called" in front of the label that describes the issues.  That's why NPR talks about "so called" partial birth abortion.  They don't like the label because they don't like the way the issue is framed.  Then Welch throws in the gratuitous quote about these measures hurting public schools.  Does that have anything to do with Yarbrough's lack of conflict?  Of course not. 

Yarbrough isn't in the paper because he votes on bills that could affect his employment.  He's in the paper because he votes on the WRONG TYPE of bills that affect his employment.  Yarbrough supports tax credits for school choice. 

If he had wanted to stay out of the paper, he should have supported pay raises for teachers, more money for mental health, additional funds for DES...you know, good bills.  Bills that reporters like. 

Lifting the Veil

Being a Legislator is a tough job.  In addition to the low pay, long hours and demands of constituents, there are the threats.  All Legislators get threats.  Some of them are subtle and legitimate "I'm a Precinct Committeeman in your district, and I want to know why you haven't secured the border." 

Some of them are way over the line "Hay iddiot, better have someonelse start your'e car."  Those are usually written in crayon and pressed really hard into the paper. 

Then there are the veiled threats. 

Jonathan Paton has been has been working to stop abuses at Child Protective Services and is making some headway.  Here's an example from the Tucson Citizen.

State Rep. Jonathan Paton, R-Tucson, said last week he is troubled by what he read in a May 15 Citizen story about a Child Protective Services' case manager who had a romantic relationship with a man whose children's welfare she once had been responsible for.

Paton also wrote an Op Ed piece for Sunday's Star in which he called for more openness at CPS. 

That's when Paton received this email:

From: CRHolgerson@aol.com [mailto:CRHolgerson@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 1:23 PM
To: Jonathan Paton
Subject: Are You The One Listed In The Following Court Information?

The email then listed four minor traffic citations that Paton had received over the last 10 years and was signed "Cheri Holgerson."

Here's Paton's response.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Paton
To: CRHolgerson@aol.com
Sent: Tue, 29 May 2007 8:45 am
Subject: RE: Are You The One Listed In The Following Court Information?

Is there some reason you're trying to find this out?

And here's her reply.

From: crholgerson@aol.com [mailto:crholgerson@aol.com]
Sent: Tue 5/29/2007 11:34 AM
To: Jonathan Paton
Subject: Re: Are You The One Listed In The Following Court Information?

It's public information, I saw your article in Sunday's paper and was
wondering if the records are your infractions.  Is there a reason you are
hesitant to give a yes or no answer?

Isn't that strange?  Paton wrote an article to say that there should be more disclosure in CPS and this woman responds to the article by looking up Paton in the court records and confronting him with his traffic tickets. 

Of course, it makes sense if you Google Cheri Holgerson.  Then you will find out that she's not just a constituent who opposes additional disclosure at CPS, Ms. Holgerson is on the staff of the Foster Care Review Board. 

Click the link and notice the seal at the left.  Yep, that's the seal of the State Supreme Court.  It seems that the Foster Care Review Board is housed under the Courts and interfaces with Child Protective Services. 

Now we know why Ms. Holgerson is so good at looking up court records.  We also have a pretty good idea why she may not be interested in having a State Representative examining the problems at Child Protective Services. 

That's right.  A Legislator's job is hard.  If you are going to delve into the problems of state government, you should have thick skin...and you had better be an excellent driver.

Update:  The Star has the story here. 

Here's an incredible post script.  The Star Reporter called Holgerson to ask about her looking up Paton's court records and here was her response: 

"I saw his, and I've also looked up yours," she told a reporter during a brief interview.

Rep. Paton on the Cover of Tucson Weekly

Here's a great article about Rep Paton. 

Before I left Fort Bliss, Texas, to start my 36-hour trip to Baghdad last September, I got some encouraging words from a chaplain: "You're going into a storm, lieutenant, where there is little shelter."

He was more of a fire-and-brimstone sort of fellow than Father Mulcahy from M*A*S*H, I guess.

The flight took us to Leipzig, Germany, and then on to Ali Asalem, Kuwait. After we loaded onto a bus, a little Arab man with a tour-guide microphone told us it was Ramadan, so no one was to be seen drinking water, smoking or doing anything more than looking serious; we didn't want to offend our Kuwaiti hosts. To emphasize that point, we were ordered not to open the curtains to see the world outside of the bus. The ugly American in me made me peek anyway. The world outside looked a lot like the uglier parts of Mohave County, without the sidewinders.

A few hours later, I was aboard a C-130, lit by the glow of a red emergency light. I could see the Air Force cargo crew dozing with their iPods on. We took several hops across Iraq until we landed in Baghdad, sometime after midnight.

Read the whole thing...

Blaming the Victim

Reporters have very little training in economics, finance or accounting, and that ignorance combined with a general disdain for certain businesses often leads to stories that have rather glaring errors.   

Readers don't expect the Arizona Republic to be the Economist or the Wall Street Journal, but we assume that somewhere along the line there are editors who can at least catch the obvious errors in front page stories. 

Here's the worst lede paragraph that I've seen this year.  The article is a hit piece on the Payday Loan industry and the lede is meaningless, mistaken and misleading.

Diane Robles, a recently divorced mom, was working as a secretary and going back to school when she borrowed $100 from a payday lender to make a mortgage payment, a decision that eventually cost her upward of $15,000 in lending fees.

The Lede is Meaningless

Let's start with the obvious.  Did Robles pay $15,000 in fees on a $100 debt?  If so, that's and incredible story.  If not, it's a meaningless comparison.  I know the Payday Loan industry has its critics, but we eventually figure out from the article that no one is claiming that Robles paid $15,000 as a result of that decision.  She decided to go into debt and eventually paid $15,000 in interest.  How much money did she eventually borrow?  We have no idea. 

I got my first credit card in 1986 and I've been making car payments, student loan payments or house payments ever since.  Can we look back on my first credit card application and claim that it was "a decision that eventually cost me upwards of $100,000 in interest expense?"  Of course not.  I made hundreds of decisions and so did Diane Robles.

The Lede is Mistaken

However, it only takes a little research to show that the $15,000 figure is completely bogus. 

If you read the full article, you will notice that Diane Robles is from Tucson.  Robles first surfaces in a February 4, 2007 opinion piece in the Arizona Daily Star.

Diane Robles is a confident, professional single mother. She has bachelor's and master's degrees and holds a good job as a facilities director with Child & Family Resources Inc., a local nonprofit agency that assists families in need.

That's not all we learned about Robles in the February article.

After two years of revolving loans, Robles said, she owed more than $10,000, and she estimated that she paid about $5,000 in fees. Her house was being foreclosed and there appeared to be no solution.

That's right.  Two months ago, Robles estimated that she had paid about $5,000 in fees.  Now the number is $15,000.  Either reporter Jessica Coomes really botched the lede or Diane Robles is a liar. 

The Lede is Misleading

Actually, we know that Diane Robles is a liar.  She may not have lied to the reporter, but she certainly lied to the Payday lenders that she defrauded. 

That's where an accounting or finance background would have helped the Republic reporter.  She portrays Robles as a victim and misses the entire point of the story.  Coomes has all the pieces, but she's not able to put them together.

Here's a key fact from the article.

Starting in 2000, Robles spent two years taking out and trying to repay the loans. She was only supposed to take out one loan at a time, but she had five from different stores.

She knew that she was only supposed to get one loan at a time, but she got loans from five stores.  She broke the law and the rules.  How do you suppose she did that?  Did she perhaps lie to the clerk or on the application?  She knew the law and the rule and she got five loans anyway.

Why do the stores have a one-loan-at-a-time rule?  It is for the same reason that your bank wants to know about your other loans when you refinance your house.  They want to make sure that you can pay the money back.  The Payday Loan stores know that if you break the rule and borrow money from five different stores that you are likely to be unable to pay them off. 

That's exactly what Diane Robles did.  She broke the rules, borrowed from five different stores and then...didn't pay them back.  She eventually cleared the debt by filing bankruptcy.

The Star article offers more detail. 

After two years of revolving loans, Robles said, she owed more than $10,000, and she estimated that she paid about $5,000 in fees.

Once Robles hit bottom, she made the decision to file for bankruptcy.

Even if she is right that she paid $5,000 in fees during her splurge, Robles admits that she broke the rules in order to borrow more money and then walked away with $10,000.  Who is the victim here?

This article should have been about people like Diane Robles who break the rules, cheat lenders and make interest rates so much higher for the rest of us. 

But that story would have taken some training and objectivity--not something you are likely to find in modern journalism. 

Family Feud

The local Republican Party tiff has gone national.  Here's the coverage in the New York Times via Drudge.

PHOENIX, May 23 — Here in Arizona,  where fighting over immigration comes as naturally as the desert heat, the Senate bill to overhaul immigration laws has ignited a particularly ardent round of fire breathing.

In the past week alone, the chairman of the state Republican Party rebuked the two United States senators from his own party, John McCain and Jon Kyl, for their support and lobbying for the bill. The chairman, Randy Pullen, part of a vocal band of conservatives, said Mr. Kyl in particular had betrayed conservatives with his sudden support for granting legal status to some of the millions of illegal workers in the country.

Mr. Kyl rode such sentiments to victory in a re-election campaign last year and so he has endured the scorn. His advocacy for the Senate bill has prompted once solid supporters to denounce him, as did State Senator Jack Harper when he joined other lawmakers to announce an effort to unite state legislatures across the country to enact anti-illegal-immigrant measures.

“Jon Kyl is a friend, but this bill has destroyed the Republican base,” Mr. Harper said. “Precinct captains are grumbling about people changing parties because they feel betrayed.”

Those last two paragraphs got Jack Harper's attention and he immediately sent out this statement.

In no way was I denouncing Jon Kyl.  I just pointed out that the bill is destroying the party's volunteer base.

Giffords v. Bee in the NYT

The New York Times on AZ 8.

When Democrat Gabrielle Giffords won Arizona’s 8th District seat last year, she fulfilled the prophesy of retiring 11-term Republican Rep. Jim Kolbe — who had predicted a far-right candidate could never win in a constituency that leaned Republican but not overwhelmingly.

Meanwhile, after a two competitive centrist candidates split the moderate vote and handed the 2006 Republican primary to political outsider Graf, Republicans appear to be uniting behind one candidate for the 2008 race: state Senate President Tim Bee.

Funniest Quote of the Day

From today's Star.

As with McCain and Kyl, Kolbe's conservative credentials are solid.

Give me a break.  Kolbe's a nice guy and all, but his moderate credentials aren't even solid.

Slade Mead For US Senate

John McCain has missed half the votes in the Senate this year.  The scheduling demands of McCain's Presidential run have proven to be a conundrum for many in the Arizona political community.  There is a group of Republicans who believe that the only thing worse than John McCain not voting for the last five weeks would be...John McCain coming back to Washington and voting.  After all, how much harm can he do in Iowa?

Some Republicans have called for McCains' resignation.  I have two words...Slade Mead. 

Mead is the Republican turned Democrat turned Republican turned Democrat who during one of his iterations as a Republican defeated Lori Daniels in a Republican Primary for the State Senate.  Mead accused Daniels of conspiring to raise taxes and he pummeled her from the right.  After her defeat, he went on to vote in lock step with the Democrats. 

Senator John Huppenthal ran against Mead and crushed him using Clean Elections funding.  (Have I mentioned how much I like Clean Elections?)  Mead then re-registered as a Democrat and ran against Tom Horne.  He lost the Democratic Primary to newcomer Jason Williams. 

This history lesson is provided in order to to remind you of one point.  Governor Napolitano would appoint McCain's replacement.  She would have to appoint a Republican and it seems to me that Mead is the logical candidate. 

Political gamesmanship has consequences.  In the early 1970s, Pima County Republicans were concerned about the Pima County Attorney.  He was a pretty impressive guy with political ambitions and the Legislative delegation from Pima County was concerned that he would try to get elected to a Republican State Senate seat.  They had a great solution.  During the 1972 redistricting, they moved the boundaries so that his house was in a district in which he clearly couldn't run a successful race for the Legislature.

Instead, he decided to run for the United States Senate.  Dennis DeConcini served in the US Senate for 18 years. 

Wouldn't it be ironic if John McCain actually resigned and some young Democrat turned Republican occupied his seat for the next quarter century?

I think McCain serving in the Senate, but living in New Hampshire is a good compromise.   

English Only

Dude, if you can't spell it, don't protest it. 

When Newspapers Attack II

In the immediately preceding post, I pointed out that the Arizona Daily Star used a single quote to build an entire editorial slamming Jonathan Paton.   I wrote that the original quote was printed in the Star and the editorial board's Sam Negri either misread or made up the quote when he wrote the editorial. 

Now the Star has issued this correction.

State Rep. Jonathan Paton, R-Tucson, says he instructed his staff to follow up on the underlying issue of where a school district's legal responsibility for a speaker's viewpoint begins and ends and did not follow up with the staff because of the November election and his deployment to Iraq. An editorial Monday on A6 mischaracterized Paton's action.

What the correction fails to mention is that the correct quote had been printed in the Star and that editorial writer Sam Negri got it wrong when he wrote the editorial.  The correction also fails to mention that the entire premise of the editorial was based the false quote.  Simply admitting that the editorial "mischaracterized Paton's action" is clearly inadequate. 

Negri got the quote wrong and then mocked Paton for using the quote.  Now that the Star admits that Negri "mischaracterized Paton's action" the entire basis of the editorial has disappeared.  This clearly deserves a retraction, not a correction.  Frankly, it deserves an apology.

The Mainstream Media like to claim that they have high standards.  When professional journalists make mistakes they work to make it right. 

Negri got the quote from the Scarpinato article wrong.  He mocked Paton for the quote and used the quote build an entire editorial in which he lambasted Paton for his "limp excuses and inaction."

Now that Sam Negri admits that the editorial "mischaracterized Paton's action" it's time for a retraction and apology. 

Come on Sam, show us how a professional journalist acts. 

When Newspapers Attack

Newspapers rely on subtle techniques to manipulate opinion.  Some of these techniques are legitimate and involve solid reasoning combined with well written analysis.  Oftentimes however, newspapers rely on personal attacks and fabrication. 

Here's a great example from today's Star.

First the personal attack.   

The Star editorial board is unhappy that Representative Jonathan Paton made a big deal about activist Dolores Huerta's statement at a mandatory TUSD assembly that "Republican's hate Latinos." 

Instead of addressing Paton's arguments, the paper uses an classic ad hominem attack on Paton. 

It turns out that Paton and his co-complainants made a big noise and failed to pursue the matter further, which makes the initial outrage looks suspiciously like a cheap way to attract attention for political gain.

The irony, of course, is that the Star is attacking Paton for not pursuing the issue hard enough.

But the personal attack alone doesn't make for a very good editorial.  That's because Paton actually did pursue the matter further.  But that point would ruin the entire editorial.  After all, the editorial sidesteps the merits of Paton's argument and attacks him personally for not pursuing the matter. 

So what does the Star do about the inconvenient fact that Paton indeed pursued the matter?  The Editorial Board fabricates a quote. 

Paton said in last week's story that he got busy and just forgot to make the request.

That's the smoking gun. Paton said he "forgot to make the request."  The Star uses that quote to drive home the assertion that the Paton's actions were merely political.  But that's not what the Scarpinato article said.  The smoking gun quote around which the Star builds its entire editorial is fabricated.  That's a fancy word for "made up."  The Star invented the quote and then built an entire editorial around the quote. 

Here's the actual quote from the Scarpinato article.

Paton says he asked the staff in the state House to send the request to the attorney general last May, but records indicate they never did so.

Did Paton say he forgot to make the request?  No.  He said he made the request. 

The Star continues with a brilliant journalistic technique.  The Star makes up the quote from Paton and the ridicules the quote that they made up. 

After falsely claiming that Paton said he "forgot."  The Star ridicules his answer: 

"Certainly that's possible, but coming from someone who was the epicenter of the original controversy — he even took his complaints to national TV — it sounds a lot like a "dog ate my homework" excuse.

Yes, if Paton's excuse was that he "forgot," it would have been a pretty lame excuse.  But as we know now, Paton didn't forget.  However, he apparently didn't follow up.  Hmm.  I've worked as a Legislator and I've worked as Legislative Staff and I can assure you that when a State Representative asks a Staff member to work on an important project, it is not the Representative's responsibility to bird dog the staffer to ensure that it gets done. 

So Paton doesn't need an excuse when staff drops the ball.  But hey, maybe Paton should have been more on top of things, maybe after making the request, he should have walked down to the basement to see how the request was going.  Maybe he had a lame excuse for not following up. 

Or perhaps he could have been deployed to Iraq. 

Sure, that's right up there with "the dog ate my homework."  "I was deployed into a combat zone 10,000 miles away and while working 17 hours a day for the US Army and with limited access to email and phone service, sleeping 5 hours a night while ignoring small arms fire, eating crappy food and sleeping quite a few nights on the ground...I forgot to ask the staffer if she followed up on my request to get an AG's opinion on the the TUSD issue."

Yeah.  That's a pretty lame excuse.    After all everyone knows that small arms fire is rarely lethal at that distance and a good chunk of Paton's time was spent in the Green zone where the suicide bombers don't blow people up very often. 

And Paton obviously had some access to email.  After all about the time House Staff was supposed to be following up on Paton's request, he sent me this email which I posted on January 17th. 

I am currently in Balad which is sort of the Chicago O'Hare of Iraq. I've been up for about 48 hours. I'm tired, dirty and a little spacey. My latest trip was supposed to take me from Liberty to Speicher. Speicher is the camp at Tikrit, Saddam's old home town. I wish I could say it was a pleasant trip. It really wasn't. In the middle of it the Army decided to kick everyone off of the chinooks in Warhorse (the camp at Bukaba). They dropped us off in the airfield which was basically a mud puddle with a port-a-john. It was freezing out there. No tent or anything, just mud. It gave me a chance to do something, however, that I never really do in Tucson: look at the stars. For the first time in a long time I was able to look at the night sky with unbelievable clarity. Orion was there and the Cyclades. it was nice to see the same thing I can see at home to make me believe for a moment that we are under the same stars at least. They eventually came back and picked us up. They had stopped to make a trip to Pollywada (which still sounds like a toad city Lewis Carroll would have created for "Alice in Wonderland"). If I ever have kids I'm going to create a land called Pollywada to tell them stories about. The people would obviously be called "Pollywadans". Tikrit sucked but the chow hall confirmed my growing suspicion that Camp Slayer really does have the worst chow hall in the CENTCOM theater of operations.

Well, I've got to wait for another several hours to catch a bird back to Baghdad.

1LT Jonathan L. Paton

Well, he obviously should have followed up. 

Or maybe the Star should stick to writing about "issues" instead of using personal attacks and making up quotes to justify its claims of "limp excuses and inaction."

I volunteer as a Big Brother, only to indoctrinate children in the gothic splendors of lawlessness.

The title of this post is taken from the Myspace profile of a guy named Dennis.  It's about the scariest sentence that I've ever read.  If you go to this guy's website, you will see comments like "Jesus is Coming!  Are you gonna spit or swallow?"  I've printed the full profile and a link to the website below.

Arizona has very aggressive laws to protect children and the state has an elaborate fingerprinting system to ensure that people who take advantage of children don't become, say, teachers, Big Brothers, or CPS workers.  There's even a state agency to oversee the fingerprinting process. 

Too bad that Dennis is the guy who runs that agency. 

Update:  The Associated Press has picked up the story and it has gone national. 

Here's a link to the website.  Here's the full profile. 

Although I live a quiet daytime life as a state employee, my friends know me as a wild debaucherer, interested in self-promotion and enrichment. And by enrichment, I mean money. None of this self-esteem crap. Though afflicted by dipsomania, I stroll through crowds under the guise of sobriety. I volunteer as a Big Brother, only to indoctrinate children in the gothic splendors of lawlessness.

My father, Alexander de Large. "There was nothing I hated more than to see a filthy old drunkie, a-howling away at the filthy songs of his fathers and going blurp blurp in between as if it were a filthy old orchestra in his stinking rotten guts. I could never stand to see anyone like that, especially when they were old like this one was."

My mother, Margaret White. "I smelled the whiskey on his breath. Then he took me. He took me, with the stink of filthy roadhouse whiskey on his breath, and I liked it. I liked it! With all that dirty touching of his hands all over me. I should've given you to God when you were born, but I was weak and backsliding, and now the devil has come home. We'll pray."

(update:  Someone pointed out that the Jesus quote was posted by a commentor.  That's true, and I've revised the post to make it clear.  But it's a very prominent comment, in fact it's a banner on the front page.  I police the EP comments every day and if something like that showed up, you could be sure that it wouldn't last long.)

Second update:  The Associated Press has picked up the story and it has gone national. 

I Read Mother Jones so You don't Have To

Here's an interesting article from Mother Jones.  (That's the first time that phrase has been written in espresso pundit.)

John McCain hasn't voted in five Weeks.  Seriously.

Back in April we noted that John McCain had been too busy straight-talking on the campaign trail to vote on important legislation on Iraq. Turns out -- and this is kind of insane -- McCain hasn't voted since.

Yeah, that's right. McCain has gone five straight weeks without casting a vote in the Senate -- he's missed 43 straight votes. If he misses the next three votes, he'll have been absent for 50 percent of the votes in the 110th Congress.

And this isn't an inevitable product of running for president. Hillary Clinton has missed just 1.8 percent of the votes this year and Barack Obama has missed 6.4 percent.

What makes this all the more remarkable is that McCain is the only candidate in Congress who has done this before. He ran for president in 2000! He should know how to do it without looking like an idiot with an absentee problem. What on earth must the people of Arizona think?

Lord knows we aren't huge McCain fans around here, but good heavens John, you're better than this.

All the News That's Fit to Correct

Congressional Quarterly is profiling the CD 5 race and the New York Times has picked up the story.  If you have ever wondered about the accuracy of the stories you read in the national press, you need only glance at this story to confirm your suspicions. 

After Arizona Democrat Harry E. Mitchell’s upset victory last year over six-term Republican J.D. Hayworth, GOP officials are vowing to target Mitchell for defeat in 2008 in the state’s 5th District, which includes Scottsdale and Tempe and has a slight Republican lean.

"Slight Republican lean?"  Dude, it's like 17 points.  The district leans so Republican that if it was a building, it would be condemned.

Jeff Hatch-Miller, the chairman of the Arizona Corporation Commission and a former Arizona legislator, also said he is interested in the 5th District race.

Actually, Mike Gleason is the Chairman of the ACC. 

Other Republicans cited as potential — but unlikely — entrants include Sean Noble, the chief of staff to Rep. John Shadegg, who represents the Phoenix-based 3rd District; Tempe mayor Hugh Hallman, who last week filed to seek re-election as mayor next year;

Actually, Noble and Hallman are officially out.  So they are not even potential candidates. 

Ahh, the mainstream media.  They aren't edgy or timely, but at least they aren't accurate. 

On the plus side, they managed to spell "Schweikert" right.  I've botched that a few times and I was the best man at his wedding. 

Waring Well

Sen. Waring's bill to protect the names and image of deceased soldiers is getting some national attention.   The Constitutional scholars at the Arizona Daily Star think you have a fundamental right to sell merchandise with the names of fallen soldiers.  However, the AZ House passed Waring's bill unanimously.  It seems like other Legislatures have the same view.  Don't they read the Star?  Oh, that's right, no one reads the Star.  (Since the T shirts are being sold and the statute is prohbiting the "Commercial Use" of the names, I think the Star's Constitutional argument is way off base. I point that out a few posts down.)

Here's an article from the Chicago Sun Times.

PHOENIX -- Incensed by the sale of anti-war T-shirts and other paraphernalia emblazoned with the names and pictures of America's military dead, some states are outlawing the commercial use of the fallen without the permission of their families.

Despite serious questions of constitutionality, Oklahoma and Louisiana enacted such laws last year, and the governors of Texas and Florida have legislation waiting on their desks. Arizona lawmakers are on the verge of a similar law.

''You should have some rights to your own name and your own legacy, particularly if you're a deceased veteran,'' said state Sen. Jim Waring.

The bills were prompted largely by pleas from families upset that their loved ones names and photos were being used on phone cards, body armor and other products.

In many cases, the target of their ire is Dan Frazier, who sells T-shirts on line that list the names of 3,155 U.S. military personnel killed in Iraq. The shirts bear slogans such as ''Bush Lied -- They Died.''

Frazier, 41, said he will not retreat. ''I'm providing a valuable service to people to help show the enormity of the cost of war,'' he said.

Number One Fan

This picture of Arizona Public Service lobbyist Marty Shultz is making the rounds at the Capitol.  I think the team spirit is great.  But what's the deal with the APS logo?  I mean, I like my job too, but...dude.  Click to enlarge it an you will notice that the S looks like a dollar sign.  That would be a great logo for a utility, but the guys from marketing probably wouldn't be able to get it past the guys from legal. 

(Update)  Proving that he has a sense of humor, Marty has posted this comment.  Here's part of it, the rest is in the comments section. 

Greg,

There are many important public policy issues to cover, but I didn't think my 35 years of support for my friend Mr. Colangelo and the Phoenix Suns was among them.

Marty and Linda's Suns seats in US Airways Arena, AWA before that, and the Madhouse on McDowell before that, are paid for by Marty and Linda and are in Section 123. Come see us there...next season.

Marty

Operators are Standing By

The Senate has approved an immigration bill and I'm getting emails from readers asking me what other Espresso Pundit readers think.  So I thought I would just post a good summary of the bill and open the comments section.  Please keep them polite. 

WASHINGTON - Senate leaders and the Bush administration agreed today to move forward with legislation that would beef up border security and let millions of undocumented immigrants get legal permission to live and work in the United States.

The deal between Democrats and Republicans, reached after months of private negotiations, clears the way for Senate debate next week on an issue that has roiled Washington - and, increasingly, cities and towns nowhere near the U.S.-Mexico border. If the agreement can hold together through Senate and House debate, new immigration laws could be in place by the end of the year.

"I've been around here long enough to know that opportunities like this don't come often," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., a longtime supporter of immigration reform and a key backer of the compromise. "Politics is about the art of the possible, and the agreement just reached is the best possible chance" at reform.

The bill is broadly similar to legislation the Senate passed last year. That proposal stalled in the face of opposition from the GOP-controlled House. But in some ways, it is far tougher on immigrants, and it includes much stricter requirements for the Department of Homeland Security to follow before many provisions kick in.

Three of the most dogged opponents of last year's Senate bill - Jon Kyl of Arizona and Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss of Georgia - signed on to the agreement.

"We set out to try to make sure that mistakes of the past ... would be resolved," Kyl said.

Don't Be Like Frank Delehanty

The Arizona Daily Star thinks the entire Legislature is abandoning the Constitution.

When it is politically safe to do so, members of the Arizona Legislature all too willingly abandon the Constitution and adopt laws that violate the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. Evidence of such misguided and legally questionable behavior can be seen in the unanimous approval given to SB 1014, a bill triggered by a Flagstaff entrepreneur who is selling anti-war T-shirts. The T-shirts say "Bush Lied/ They Died" superimposed over the names of some 3,000 men and women killed while on military duty in Iraq.

The unanimous Legislature believes that selling T shirts with the names of dead soldiers can be prohibited.  The Star believes that these T shirt sales are a fundamental right and the Legislature's attempt to prohibit the sales amounts to "abandoning the Constitution."  Give me a break.

Let's walk through an example.

Too many journalists die for their profession.  You might disagree, but I could argue that those lives are wasted for a cause and an industry that thinks too highly of itself.  Of course, they are adult volunteers, so I guess they make their own choices. 

I will never forget the day I turned 19.  It was July 22nd, 1982.  I had just finished my first year at UA and I was working in South Tucson for my father's construction company.  We heard a dull "boom" followed 10 or 15 minutes later by a large boom...and then the sirens. 

The explosion was at the Arizona Daily Star building and the first boom was pretty minor.  A transformer caught fire and part of it exploded.  Unfortunately, it's too common that someone's last words are "hey, let's go check out that explosion." 

That first explosion gave the Star's top brass time to get outside and check out the commotion.  That's when the entire transformer exploded.   Here's what the New York Times said at the time. 

Frank Delehanty, business manager and controller of The Arizona Daily Star in Tucson, died here today of burns suffered in an explosion at the newspaper July 22. He was 56 years old. Mr. Delehanty was one of four newspaper employees critically injured when a power failure sparked the transformer explosion. Jack Sheaffer, 53, The Star's chief photographer, remains hospitalized in serious condition. The executive managing editor, Frank Johnson, 62, is expected to be released from a Tucson hospital next week. Wayne Bean, 42, production manager for Tucson Newspapers Inc., was released earlier this month.

I could make T Shirts about journalists and the inadequacies of their profession.  But if I wanted to put Frank Delehanty's name or picture on them and sell them, I would have a problem.  That's because even though Mr. Delehanty is not a famous figure, it would probably be misappropriation of his likeness for me to sell merchandise with his image.  Sure, I could use his image in a political commercial about the inadequacies of the journalistic profession.  I can write about him in this post.  After all, the First Amendment protects my freedom of speech.  His family would probably be appalled, but hey, free speech is free speech. 

But that doesn't mean that I have a constitutional right sell Frank Delehanty merchandise. 

The Legislature is facing the same conundrum with the T shirts carrying the names of dead soldiers.  Is the "entrepreneur" making a political statement?  Yes.  Are the shirts commercial?  Yes.  Do the families object to the names of their children, husbands, fathers, brothers being appropriated for use on T Shirts?  Yes. 

So the legislature decided to clear it up.  You can't use a soldier's name on a T Shirt without the permission of the family.  The Star is quick to claim that this prohibition is a violation of free speech, and maybe they will support me when Frank Delehanty's family sues over my use of his name on my coffee cups.  (Only $4.95 be sure to ask about free shipping.)

Or maybe the Star should learn that free speech has limits and when the limits of free speech and common decency are crossed, the unanimous Legislature will step in. 

Sinking to a New Low

About a year ago a boy named Benji and his "adult sponsor" showed up at my door and asked me to subscribe to the Republic.  Since then, I've had ongoing coverage of the Arizona Republic using Children as bait to get subscriptions.  The paper uses third party vendors who bring children to your door and ask you to subscribe so that they can stay off drugs and win trip to camp, six flags, Chuckie Cheese etc.

Every few months, I get an e-mail from someone who had a similar experience.  Here's a recent letter that represents the most egregious example I've seen so far. 

Tonight we had a couple of gals ring our doorbell attempting to sell a subscription to the Republic.  My husband talked to them - it was a special program to help kids ...my husband said he thought the younger gal of 12 was developmentally disabled.  She was prompted by her adult partner to explain what they are doing (she pledges to be drug free) and by purchasing a subscription, we could help her win a 6 flags trip and a scholarship etc....My husband said he would like to help but we don't get the AZ Rep and don't wish to subscribe.  The adult asked why and he said it's too slanted to the left and that I got to read it at work anyway....

Sure, we'll bring developmentally disabled children to the door and ask you to subscribe.  Feel free to say "no", there's no obligation.

I continue to cover the story because it resonates on so many levels.  Newspapers are run for a profit and they make decisions to maximize their profit.  I don't have any problem with that.  However, newspapers claim that they serve a higher purpose so when I see something as smarmy as using developmentally disabled children to ask people to subscribe so the kid can go to camp, I find it to be pretty repulsive. The hypocrisy angle alone is significant.  After all, if you go to the Fair Trade Organic Coffee Shop and they serve your latte in a Styrofoam cup that they purchased at Wal-Mart, you would marvel at their hypocrisy.  If the local utility company used children to read meters in exchange for a chance to win a trip to camp, the newspapers--and the Attorney General--would be all over that.  But I've discussed the Republic's use of children with the publisher and he stands by the policy.

The hypocrisy angle is obvious, but what about abuse?  Is this practice regulated?  Is there someone out there who ensures that the kids get their trips and their scholarships?  How late do they work and for how many hours?  Does someone screen these adults?  My church fingerprints people who work in the Sunday School Nursery.  Is someone watching out for these children?

I can understand the tactic.  The "No Call List" greatly curtailed the telemarketer schemes.  And door-to-door sales hasn't worked in 30 years.  The only possible way to get subscriptions door-to-door is to have some sort of hook.  Children are an effective hook.  Developmentally challenged children are a really effective hook. 

But is the Republic so desperate for subscriptions and so morally craven that it is willing to rely on children as a gimmick to lure subscribers?  I originally doubted that management could be that base.  But I’ve been covering the story for over a year, I’ve discussed it with the publisher and this is the policy.

Even if this is an effective way to get subscribers, it strikes me as a terrible management decision.  The potential public relations implications are huge, but what about the liability.  What if these kids aren't getting paid?  What if one of them gets hurt or molested?  Do you think the class action suit is going stop at the third party vendors, or do you think that they will look at the Republic's very deep pockets?

The Republic obviously isn't going to cover the story, so I will continue to print letters from readers who find children at their door. 

Pop Quiz

The two greatest legal scenes in modern film are, of course, Jack Nicholson "you can't handle the truth!" and this exchange from Legally Blonde. 

PROFESSOR DONOVAN: And the purpose of "diminished capacity" is?
     She swallows nervously, then speaks

ELLE: To negate mens rea?  Donovan nods affirmatively and continues. Elle hides a smile.

If I ever got called on in Criminal Law class and didn't know the answer, I was either going to yell "Objection", or stroke my chin and say "to negate mens rea?"

Here's a question that I would have botched in Criminal Law, let's see how you do.  What crime in Arizona carries the maximum mandatory penalty?  How about cold blooded premeditated murder?  That would be a good guess, but it would be wrong.  There are three possible penalties for murder:  Death, life in prison and 25 years to life.  So if you kill someone in cold blood, depending on the circumstances you could be out in 25 years. 

But let's say that you are surfing the Internet and decide to check out some pornography.  Hmm, not a good idea.  Then let's say you decide to check out some kiddie porn.  I think all of us will agree that in addition to being disgusting, it should be a serious crime to download child pornography.  So you download ten pictures and save them on your hard drive....and you get caught.

What should the penalty be?  How about mandatory life in prison with no possibility of parole, a true life sentence?  That's a harsher penalty than premeditated murder and it's the law in Arizona.  Here's the latest case.

A man sentenced Tuesday to 290 years in prison for having child porn would have a received a shorter sentence if the judge in the case had his way. State law required Pima County Superior Court Judge John Leonardo to sentence Carl Ray Buske to between 10 and 24 years on each of the 29 charges he was convicted of and to run them consecutively. The judge gave Buske the lowest sentence possible but called the prison time "extraordinarily excessive" and immediately gave Buske's attorney permission to ask for the sentence to be commuted.

I asked a prosecutor friend of mine about the law and he pointed out that it was passed in 1994 and I voted for it.  Wow, that's a bummer.  I certainly had no idea of the ramifications.  That's because while a stiff, say 10 year, sentence for possessing child pornography seemed reasonable, I didn't realize that it would be 10 years for each picture and that the law mandated that those sentences be served sequentially.

But the key point is that I voted for the law before the Internet.  If you possessed child pornography in 1994, you probably either took the pictures yourself or bought them from someone who took them.  No one envisioned email or the ability to download dozens of pictures in minutes.  No one understood that someone could sit at a home computer and in a matter of minutes download enough pictures to earn life in prison with no possibility of parole. 

I think we can all agree that the person in my hypothetical is guilty of a crime.  After all, it's the porn customers who create the market.  But is that crime more serious than murder?  Does downloading a dozen pictures really justify a mandatory life sentence?  I don't think so.

To its credit, the Arizona Supreme Court has upheld the statute.  After all it's not the Supreme Court's job to repeal laws it thinks are too harsh.  That job falls to the Legislature.  I voted for a law that seemed reasonable.  Circumstances have made it much too harsh.  Someone else needs to vote to change it. 

Some National Espresso

NPR's All Things Considered has a Renzi update this afternoon.  They were looking for a really smart, articulate political insider who could give them a great sound bite...they couldn't find anyone like that, so they went with me. 

We Live in a Great Place XXVIII

I noticed that the City of Denver purchased an ad on the front page of  the Republic last week.  I guess with Talton gone their days of free press are over.  Phoenix is a great place to live and here's yet another national survey that confirms what many of us already know.

In each of the past three years, the Phoenix area has created about 95,000 new jobs, many of them fueled by an unprecedented construction boom. This year's number is pegged at about 60,000--a major drop-off, to be sure, but still enough in the context of the national slowdown to place Phoenix solidly in the top 10. Low income taxes and sunny weather are still attracting a steady stream of newcomers, primarily from the Northeast and Midwest; 114,000 are expected this year, continuing to stoke demand for new roads, schools, and health-care facilities. So while Phoenix's homebuilding sector will likely be down about 40 percent in 2007, employment linked to long-term infrastructure projects will stay hot. Still, Phoenix remains largely a mom-and-pop economy, with small business expected to drive most of the job expansion. (Emphasis mine.)

"Mom-and-pop economy"  That drives the local elite crazy.  None of the fancy, top down, central planning government solutions are geared to bringing in mom and pop businesses,  but small business produces all the jobs.  If you ask those entrepreneurs what they want from government, I bet you are going to hear answers like lower taxes and less regulation.  I don't think you will hear much about a state run hotel down town and a new state owned convention center. 

Would you Like some Gasoline with that Match?

Budget negotiations between the Senate and House are getting tense.  The Senate has crafted a bipartisan budget and the House is unhappy that the Senate Republican Leadership worked with the Senate Democrats before coming to an agreement with the House. 

Now it's time for the House and Senate to work out a compromise--after all, it takes a majority of both bodies to pass the budget, and a deal that has 25 votes in the Senate isn't going to cut it if it only has 25 votes in the House.

The Republican leadership in the House and Senate need to mend some fences.

This Op Ed piece in today's Arizona Daily Star is going to make matters worse. 

Here's how the ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, Paula Aboud, describes the "magical" Senate budget  process.   

Those were the ingredients that brought us together, but what made this negotiation magical was the effort of the four Southern Arizona legislators to bring our friendship to the table and insist on an open, honest negotiation among all nine senators. And it worked.

For too long, the Legislature has been riddled with partisan bickering that undermines the process for everyone, and it especially disgusts the citizens of the state. Since the "old guard" legislators weren't in the room, the nine of us created a spirit of cooperation that has stood out as a beacon of possibilities to come.

Here's how she describes the House Budget. 

It's worth mentioning the House budget process in comparison. Halfway through the Senate negotiations, Speaker of the House Jim Weiers tried to barge in and take over the Senate budget negotiations. After numerous stormy meetings between the House and Senate Republicans, the Senate Republicans split with the House speaker and came back to finish negotiating the budget with the Senate Democrats.

Throwing together a hastily constructed series of numbers, the House did release its substandard budget last week. Apparently, ego was more important to the speaker of the House than a good budget.

Substandard and ego driven.  Ouch. 

Note From the Base

Senator Kyl:

During your time in office, you have been a staunch advocate for border security and true immigration reform and have faithfully put the interests of the American people first.  You have been a strong adherent to fair, principled immigration policies that support the rule of law and reward those who seek to play by those rules.  Above all, you have firmly opposed any plan to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens who have broken our laws.

Americans overwhelmingly oppose any attempt to reward those who have illegally entered this country with a pathway to citizenship.  From higher crime rates, to overcrowded classrooms and emergency rooms, the American people acutely feel the impact of illegal immigration.  Moreover, they recognize that without a commitment from their elected representatives to secure our borders, enforce our immigration laws and maintain the rule of law, the American quality of life will continue to decline.

Recent events surrounding the terrorist plot to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey illustrate the connection between rampant, unchecked illegal immigration, the inability of our government to effectively screen applicants applying for legal entry and the threat to our national security posed by a broken immigration system.  Granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens with unknown backgrounds would only further serve to burden our system and make it that much more difficult to fix.

We know you understand how important it is to protect and preserve American national interests.  Thus, it is with great concern that we observe your integral role in crafting an amnesty plan in concert with the Bush Administration.  We urge you to abandon these efforts.

President Bush’s approval ratings are at historic lows and Congress is now controlled by Democrats.  Republican support for amnesty in an effort to appease a lame-duck president and provide political cover to a slim and tenuous Democratic majority will only help to cement that Democratic majority and serve to further destroy the remaining vestiges of loyalty within the grassroots activists comprising the heart and soul of our party.

The decision you make on this critical issue will have a grave impact on future generations.  We ask you to put our nation and its security first.  We ask you to keep your promise to the people of Arizona and oppose illegal alien amnesty in all forms.

Sincerely,

Representative Russell Pearce
Representative Mark Anderson
Representative Trish Groe
Representative Bob Robson
Representative John Kavanagh
Representative Andy Biggs
Representative Eddie Farnsworth
Representative Jerry Weiers
Representative Judy Burges
Representative Rick Murphy
Representative Bob Stump
Representative Tom Boone
Representative John McComish
Representative Jim Weiers
Representative Warde Nichols
Representative John Nelson
Speaker Jim Weiers
Senator Linda Gray
Senator Chuck Gray
Senator Jack Harper
Senator Karen Johnson
Senator Pam Gorman
Senator Ron Gould
Senator Thayer Verschoor
Senator Robert Blendu
Don Goldwater – Former Arizona Republican Gubernatorial Candidate
Tom Ross – Chairman, Navajo County Republican Committee

Writing While Clueless

Occasionally I encounter a Republic editorial that is so badly written and so logically flawed that I assume that the Board is playing some sort of game to see if anyone notices.  That or Keven Willey is back in town.

Here's Tuesday's lead editorial in its entirety together with my commentary in blue. 

In America, how we drive and how we play may reveal unpleasant truths about who we are.

That’s exactly right.  I can drive 90 mph in the left lane on the 101 and I still get flipped off by people passing me on the right. 

But the U.S. Constitution was written with the aim of forming "a more perfect union." Consider it a work in progress.

Excuse me?  I thought we were talking about bad drivers.  Do those sentences have any relation to each other?  Why are they connected with “but?”  Are we contrasting the way we drive with the the purpose of the Constitution?  The “more perfect union” is from the preamble, and is a reference to the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation.  The previous “union” wasn’t working out very well because the loose confederation of states couldn’t pay its debts.  Does that have something to do with how we drive and how we play?

An important tool in that process could be a federal study that found disparities in the way people of color are treated by police.

What process?  Creating a national bank, eliminating tariffs between the states and coining money?

The Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics reviewed traffic stops during the last six months of 2005.

OK, we are off the Constitution and back to driving and play, but I guess we are going to ignore “play.”

Latinos, Blacks and Whites were stopped at similar rates.

That’s  a really important point.   “Latinos, Blacks and Whites were stopped at similar rates.” That's good, because for a moment, I thought the author was going to argue that the cops are racists. 

What happened next was troubling.

Uh oh.

The police searched 9.5 percent of the Blacks and 8.8 percent of the Hispanics but only 3.6 percent of the White drivers.

Blacks were arrested 4.5 percent of the time, Latinos 3.1 percent and Whites 1.2 percent. Force was also more commonly used against Blacks and Latinos.

There were other disparities. Men were more likely to be searched than women, and people younger than 30 were more likely to be searched than those older.

OK, so people of color, men and people under 30 are more likely to be searched or arrested than middle aged white women.  Why is that?

Individual circumstances that could account for these differences were not analyzed...

Oh, we don’t know.  That’s a key sentence.  There was no analysis of individual circumstances.  So we have no idea why cops search soccer moms less than they search teenage boys.  My guess would be that soccer moms, you know, give cops less probable cause than teenage boys.  But the study didn’t address that.  So we don’t know, because, like I said, the study didn’t analyze it.  But the author obviously has a view.

...so it is not possible to attribute the statistics entirely to prejudice.

Entirely?  Actually it’s not possible to attribute any of the statistics to prejudice.  That’s because, you know, the study didn’t analyze the differences. 

Those circumstances should be analyzed. More detailed research needs to be done.

That’s a great idea.  Maybe we should wait for the analysis to be conducted before we attribute the differences to prejudice, and then write editorials in major papers about the prejudice. 

The perception that "driving while Black" is grounds for being stopped is strong in some communities.

Wow, that's an awkward transition.  "Some communities”?  Well, communities of editorial writers apparently conclude that “driving while Black” is grounds for being stopped.  But the study referred to above would demonstrate that those “communities” would be wrong.  Remember that first key sentence. “Latinos, Blacks and Whites were stopped at similar rates.”

Doubts about the fairness of the justice system can be as corrosive as a reality...

What? False doubts are as corrosive as reality?  The study shows that the perception is wrong, but I guess that’s as corrosive as the reality.  But what’s the alleged “reality”?

...in which some people are treated differently because of the color of their skin.

Hmm, nice try.  But remember that the study didn’t address why people are treated differently.  The editorial writer originally tried to slip in the prejudice angle by saying that without a study, we couldn’t tell if the differences were “entirely” from prejudice.  Now the “reality” is that people are treated differently because of the color of their skin.  Which is of course, NOT what the study determined, because this entire editorial is about a study that found no evidence of prejudice because the study didn’t analyze the different treatment. 

Either way, America needs to know what's going on.

Yeah, I need to know what’s going on too.  After all, the study shows that blacks, Latinos and whites are stopped at similar rates yet the study provides no information on why people of color, men and people under 30 are searched and arrested at higher rates than middle aged white women.  My theory is that they commit more crimes than middle aged white women, but that's probably a reflection of my personal bias, so I won't opine on that issue until I see the results of a study. 

The study suggests we have a ways to go as we work toward that perfect union.

Are we back to the Articles of Confederation?  Good, because the Commerce Clause is really starting to tick me off. 

But it also provides information that can help the process.

What information?  The study provides no information.  What process?  And why are those sentences connected with “but.”

The author claims that “America needs to know what’s going on.”  And I’m beginning to understand what’s going on.  Someone with weak writing and analytical skills is claiming that traffic cops are racists despite the fact that the study didn’t address that issue.

The Republic had better stop treating its readers like idiots or readers are going cancel their...well never mind.

Socrates was Killed For a Reason: Reflections on My First Year of Law School.

My first year at ASU's law school is officially over and I thought I would take a moment and share some of the milestones.  My experience is probably not representative. I'm married, have three kids and I work full time.  My hours are flexible and most of my work is electronic, so I could attend ASU full time as well.  Working is frowned upon, so the first semester I kept a suit at my office and wore casual clothes to school.  By the second semester I blew that off and just wore a suit to school every day. 

During finals last week, I was in the library and wanted to reheat some coffee in the microwave but I didn't want to walk to the student lounge.  I was standing outside the library staff lounge wondering if I could sneak in...and then it hit me.  "Dude, you are 43 year old guy in a white shirt and tie, no one is going to kick you out of the library staff lounge."  It was a liberating moment.  In fact, it was similar to my most profound realization:

Most Profound Realization:  I'm no longer 27. 

We all have a mental age and I eventually realized that I view myself as about 27.  That is, until I met students who are actually in their 20s.  Everything was fine at first, then the professor called on one of them.  Law schools still use the Socratic method.  The first year is largely a hazing experience, so the professors call on students randomly and ask a series of questions about a case until you eventually make a fool of yourself. 

The students at ASU are really bright.  I've been extremely impressed the caliber of the student body,  but they are so...young.  Here's a typical example.  The professor will walk into class and without any greeting say "Ms. Smith, tell us about the case of Able v. Baker."  Ms. Smith will compose herself and say.  "OK, This is a Supreme Court case that was decided 5 to 4 in favor of the plaintiff."  The professor will then say "Tell us what each justice said."  Ms. Smith will say, "OK, Justice Scalia, he was all like, "you have to look at the original language" and Justice Thomas, he goes "right on" but Justice Breyer, he was like "you have to look at the purpose of the statute," and Justice Scalia was like "whatever," and then Justice O'Connor, she like wrote the opinion and it was like 5-4 and she had this like six part test and now the six part test is like, you know, the law.  Is this going to be on the final?

Biggest Surprise:  No Discernible Bias. 

Let's face it law school professors are generally pretty liberal.  I have a pretty high tolerance for bias,(after all, I listen to NPR) and I expected the classes to reflect the views of the teachers.  That wasn't the case.  In fact, professors were quick to lead students down rabbit trails that ended in Conservative results. 

Most Pleasant Surprise:  Intellectual Diversity

Law schools strive for a diverse student body and I assumed that "intellectual diversity" would cover the spectrum from the ACLU on the left to the Sierra Club on the right.  I was pleasantly surprised.  Sure, there are plenty of ACLU, PETA members and it's interesting to hear their perspective--especially in Con Law.  But I was pleased that one of my friends from the Goldwater institute is in my class and that there is a surprisingly strong LDS contingent. 

The LDS guys have been the most fun to watch.  They are in their late 20s because they took a few years off for missions.  They are almost all married; several of them have one child already and are expecting a second.  They are very serious students and it appears that they are over represented in the top ranks of the class. 

One thing intrigued me about my LDS friends.  My coffee consumption skyrocketed in law school.  How can they get through school without coffee or tea?  I soon had an answer.  About three weeks into the first semester, I showed up to a morning class and one of my Mormon friends was chugging his second Red Bull.  I guess that's why they are all strict constructionists. 

Most Profound Reading:  The Andrews Dissent in Palsgraf

Cardozo's opinion gets all the press, but the Andrew's dissent reads like theology.  "We may regret that the line was drawn just where it was, but drawn somewhere it had to be."

Single Most Difficult Topic:  Rule Against Perpetuities

No practicing lawyer understands the Rule Against Perpetuities.  It's a hazing ritual, like making medical students work 48 hours straight, or making young monkeys pick lice off of old monkeys.  Actually, once you factor in unborn widows and fertile toddlers, the rule is pretty mechanical. But I swore to myself that if the professor asked me about it, I would answer the question and then say "Thank you sir, may I have another."

The Rule Against Perpetuities requires you to identify every "life in being."  The LDS guys and I got a kick out of the fact that for purposes of the Rule, life begins at conception.  I guess the law doesn't have to be consistent. 

Best Professor:  Andy Hurwitz

I know.  You think I'm sucking up, but I don't even take the bar until 2009, do you think I could possibly argue a case in front of the State Supreme Court prior to Justice Hurwitz' retirement?  Justice Hurwitz was my Civil Procedure instructor and had a great balance between Socratic intimidation and straight lecture.  Since the material is procedural, he's allowed to discuss it without worrying about having to rule on it later, so the discussions were pretty free flowing.  He also writes a darn good test.  My favorite part is "False because..."  Fifteen questions and all the answers are "false", but you have to say why it's false.  Every year someone claims one of the questions is actually true.  No, they are false, that's why he's on the Supreme Court and you aren't.

Most Defining Moment:  Who Writes Laws?

The first year curriculum is all common law--written by judges over that last five hundred years.  Students assume judges make most law and don't read much about statutes until later courses.  By then the impression that "Legislators" are not a significant part of the legal system is firmly established.  A few weeks into the first semester, my writing teacher was explaining how to find a statute and she wanted to know "who wrote statutes."  The students were all looking at their shoes, but the professor had figured out that I had served two terms in the House.  She looked at me and said "Mr. Patterson, who writes statutes."  I responded.  "Lobbyists."

Next year, I'll let you know how the second year went. 

Surprise!

Client control is so difficult. 

The cities have infuriated legislators by giving multi million dollar incentives for retail stores to locate within their borders.  After all, the cities always claim that if they don't get every dime they are due from the state, they will be forced to lay off the police officers, fire the firemen, unplug the preemies and close the libraries.  Then some company from back east offers to build, say, a bass boat dealership and the mayors outbid each other to offer it $50 million in tax rebates.  Legislators have sworn to end the giveaways and the cities have promised to police themselves...if they can only have one more chance. 

The plea from the cities is working.  Rep. Rick Murphy and Sen. Ken Cheuvront have sponsored a bill to eliminate the giveaways but the bill is stalled in the Senate.  All the cities have to do is run out the clock.  Then...Surprise!

Last week the City of Surprise threw a wrench in the plans. 

The city of Surprise is facing criticism over a $240 million sales tax rebate it is giving Westcor to build a vast retail, office and residential project on farmland next to the planned Loop 303 freeway.

Just when that controversy was starting to die down, Surprise struck again. 

The city of Surprise is giving a tax break to a Michigan auto company that plans to develop a Toyota dealership and another auto facility along the planned Loop 303 freeway.

The United Auto deal is separate from a $240 million tax rebate Surprise is giving Westcor and its development partners to build Prasada, a sweeping project that includes shopping malls, office and medical buildings and thousands of houses.

That's right, let's pay Westcor $240 million to build a mall.  After all, why would a store want to locate in the fastest growing state in the nation?  Obviously they would not come here unless we paid them.  And what about the malls that have been here for years?  Maybe the cities should give a couple hundred million to Metro Center. 

Or maybe the Legislature should recognize that the cities need adult supervision.