Arizona's Own Espresso Pundit

Down Time

I'll be offline for most of the week.  I've hiked the Grand Canyon every year since the mid 1990s, and  I started bringing my son when he was about five.  This year he has a school project that he can't miss, but I'm taking daughters, ages 10 and 11. 

The great thing about hiking the Grand Canyon with your children is that the imensity and age of the canyon makes you realize how insignificant your life is.  Then again, the children make you realize how important your life is.  Each of them answer the question "what would the Universe be like without me."  But the answers are very different. 

Here's a picture of Daniel and me on the Silver Bridge at the bottom of the Bright Angel trail in 2001.   The next picture is the two of us in the same spot last April.

The Vote is Cheap...Get rid of the Cash.

Congressmen Giffords and Mitchell have voted to condemn the now imfamous Move.On ad attacking General Petraeus.  That's a classic Washington move; keep the money but condemn the contributor.   Giffords accepted at least $5,000 in cash from Move.On and Mitchell received over $146,000 in independent expenditures from the organization.

Come on guys, you were for Move.On before you were against them.  Now you can tell the Net Roots that you accepted their support and you can tell your District that you voted to condemn them.  You can only have it both ways for so long.  It's time to give the Move.On money to your favorite local charity and say that you will no longer accept Move.On's money.

(In the much more obscure Committee vote, Giffords voted not to allow the condemnation motion to go to the floor of the House.  Then she voted for it when it reached the floor.  So, I guess, she was for Move.on twice before she was against them.)

BTW, the New York Times now admits that the Petreaus ad violated its own advertising standards.  The paper does not accept advertisements that contain personal attacks on individual people.  Meanwhile the paper is finally conceding that Move.On was charged half the price that it should have paid. 

The image on the left is the original ad over overlaid with a response from Congressman John Shadegg.

Toxic Spew

The Arizona Republic blogs have the unintended consequence of allowing readers to get a glimpse into the psyche of the Republic's reporters and editors.  Oftentimes these glimpses show examples of deep biases that taint the stories they write. 

Here's a example of completely unprofessional snarky diatribe by Republic Editor John D'Anna.  This piece is so full of condescension that it wouldn't make the cut for a letter to the editor.  When you read it, remember that D'Anna has a significant role in the Republic's environmental coverage and ask yourself if he would be able to put these views aside and cover the issue fairly.

The topic is fairly straightforward.  Mesa is having a hazardous waste collection day.  Here's D'Anna's post.

Mesa is hosting a hazardous waste collection day a week from Saturday, and the only question we have is, how are they going to fit the entire downtown in a Dumpster?

Seriously, one man's trash is another man's...Apache Junction!

Whoa, call us butter 'cause we're on a roll!

Anyway, if you happen to reside in the city of wide streets and narrow minds (as we do) you can get rid of old cans of paint, batteries, pesticides, tires, dismembered body parts, WMD or Steve Benson cartoons by bringing them to the East Mesa Service Center, 6935 E. Decatur (east of Power Road, north of University) between 8 a.m. and noon Oct. 6.

There's no charge, but you do have to show your most recent sanitation bill to prove you're not trying to sneak stuff in from Tempe.

We picked on Mesa becasue we just happend to get a press release from them, but more and more cities are hosting such events.

We can't tell you which ones just now, because that would involve research, and you know how we feel about not letting work interfere with our employment.

-- John D'Anna

I realize that he's trying to be funny, but it reads like the wedding toast of a drunk best man who doesn't like the bride.  He can claim he's only joking, but it's clear that he means it.  And I'm not going to comment on his spelling errors since I can't spell "because" or "happened" either. 

But ask yourself if it's appropriate to call Mesa a "city of wide streets and narrow minds".  Ask yourself what he thinks of Russell Pearce, Karen Johnson or the LDS church.  The answers are obvious.

John D'Anna has tremendous behind-the-scenes influence on the content of Republic stories.  If he can turn Mesa's announcement of a hazardous waste pick up into a snarky diatribe about Mesa, Apache Jucntion and the people who inhabit them, think what he does when an East Valley legislator sponsors a bill that D'Anna opposes. 

The World is Not Enough

This Center For Arizona Policy lunch looks like a good event. 

Dr. Olasky is the editor-in-chief of the popular newsweekly WORLD magazine. His work has influenced policymakers at the highest levels of government. He is the author of multiple books, including The Religions Next Door, The Tragedy of American Compassion, The American Leadership Tradition, Compassionate Conservatism, and a novel, Scimitar’s Edge. He has also written numerous articles on journalism, history, poverty-fighting, religion, sports, and other matters that have been published in academic journals and in newspapers and magazines like the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and Fortune. Olasky is also a regular columnist on Townhall.com.

Ticket prices start at $35 per person. Event and table sponsorships are available. Call CAP at (602) 424-2525 or register online.

Have You Stopped Beating Your Wife Yet?

I've been interviewed hundreds of times by reporters.  I served in the Legislature for four years, ran for office three times, served as RUCO Director for five years, handled press for the State Senate for about two years and I've been in the private sector for seven years. 

In the years that I've been writing Espresso Pundit I've tried to make the point that reporters try to hide their biases when they write, but those biases are often visible in their more relaxed moments.  That's not true in interviews.  Oftentimes reporters are openly hostile in interviews.  Many times, it's obvious that they have an agenda and they don't even attempt to act neutral or fair.  Oftentimes they are belligerent and are trying to pick a fight so they can write a story that makes the public official look defensive. 

Unfortunately, it's hard to capture this type of bias or hostility and present it to you in blog entries, so I'm left showing you areas where they slip, or provide indications of bias in their stories. 

Now, however, I have a great example of how the interviews are actually conducted.  This interview must have been recorded and then transcribed because we get to see the reporter's agenda in the questions. 

Superintendent Tom Horne does a great job answering these questions despite the fact that the reporter clearly has an agenda and is trying to put Horne on the defensive.  Ask yourself if this unnamed reporter will be able to write a fair story in the future.

Here are the five questions.

As state superintendent of public schools, what report card would you give public instruction in Arizona? Most national studies continually rank Arizona near the bottom, just above Mississippi.

What will it take for the Legislature to properly address the funding needs of this state in terms of education? Or do retirees with no kids still rule when it comes to school taxes and funding?

Average teacher pay in Arizona is just under $43,000 a year, about $4,800 less than the national average. Is there an even exchange between the quality of education and the cost of education? In other words, if we pay teachers more, do we really get better education?

Arizona is a national leader in charter schools. Is this a good thing? Many people argue that charter schools just rob public schools for limited resources, preventing public schools from ever achieving excellence.

Most school leaders and members of the public oppose combining school districts to form megadistricts. Where do you stand?

The reporter makes it clear what answer he wants to hear.  This type of questioning is as unprofessional as it is common. 

LaWall Responds

Monday I wrote that sources say that Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall intends to conflict herself out of the Employer Sanction Cases. 

Amanda Craig Cramer issued this denial in the comments sections of that post.  It's such an adamant denial from an elected official, that I thought it deserved it's own post.

This blog posting is inaccurate. Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall intends to enforce the Arizona Legal Workers Act, otherwise colloquially known as the "Employer Sanctions Law." Indeed, she has assigned several of the top lawyers in her office the task of preparing procedures and forms to enforce the law. She will be hiring an attorney, an investigator and an administrative staff person to join her Civil Division prior to January 1, 2008 - when the law takes effect - to handle civil enforcement actions against employers. She also has assigned the Property Crimes Unit in her Criminal Division to handle criminal actions against employees who obtain jobs based upon false documents. She has directed her attorneys to participate in planning meetings and to coordinat e efforts with the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency ("ICE"), with the Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts, and with the leaders of other county attorneys' offices to ensure that her office receives the widest available input regarding how best to enforce this new law beginning January 1, 2008. She also has been informing local employers in Pima County about the new law and the requirement that they ensure and verify the legal status of their workers. She has done this in an effort to ensure maximum compliance with the law. Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall has been a leader in preparing to enforce this new law efficiently, effectively, and fairly, as she does with respect to all the laws of the State of Arizona. It is true that in the rare instances in which the Pima County Attorney's Office is faced with an ethical conflict of interest situation, the County Attorney complies with the Supreme Court's Ethical Rules requiring that she refer the case to another agency to investigate and prosecute. To do otherwise would be improper. We are fortunate to have an elected county attorney of the caliber of Barbara LaWall. She is both ethical and effective. She has dedicated her career to prosecuting criminals, to supporting victims of crime, and to making our community safer. (Incidentally, County Attorney LaWall attended the University of Arizona Law School here in Pima County.)

CPS or CYA?

You are probably aware that Child Protective Services is a mess.  Reps Adams and Paton have single handedly managed to expose the weaknesses in the agency--generally over the objections of those whose job it is to protect children. 

They are holding hearings on Tuesday and Tucson Prosecutor Barbara LaWall isn't happy that the hearings are going to be public.  (You will recall from yesterday's post that LaWall has plenty of time on her hands since she's refusing to prosecute the Employer Sanctions Law.)

I thought that you might be interested in the email exchange between LaWall and Rep. Adams. 

First, this story provides some background.

A legislative committee chairman on Monday rejected a prosecutor's last-minute request to shelve a planned public hearing on Child Protective Services' dealings with Tucson families which had children die, allegedly at the hands of parents.

Here's the email exchange. 

The Hon. Kirk Adams
Chairman, Committee on Government
Az. House of Representatives

Dear Chairman Adams:

Last week I was contacted by Ms. Carolyn Atwater on behalf of the House Committee on Government. She sought my input regarding the CPS hearing scheduled for Tuesday, September 25th. I am very appreciative that my input as the Pima County Attorney was sought. After sharing my specific concerns with Ms. Atwater, I felt it would be important to put them in writing and share them with you personally, as well as with the other members of your committee.

I am pleased that your committee and the legislature are considering the effectiveness of CPS and studying how it might better protect the most vulnerable children in our state. As a prosecutor, and as one who operates a victim advocacy program, I share your concern for and commitment to our children and to their protection.

It is my understanding that your committee will be looking at CPS' operations broadly, and that it also will be focusing upon two specific cases involving alleged homicides of children who had been under CPS' jurisdiction in Pima County. Those two cases are ones in which my Office is handling homicide prosecutions.

As County Attorney, my primary duties in connection with these homicide cases are protecting the integrity of our prosecutions, protecting the rights of the victims as well as the accused, protecting the evidence, and avoiding pre-trial publicity and a potential change of venue.

I am highly concerned about the legislature holding a public hearing where specific details may be discussed involving these two serious criminal cases that have yet to be brought to trial. Any public discussion regarding details of the defendants' conduct or other specific facts that may be the subject of testimony at the trials in these cases could cause substantial harm to our criminal prosecutions. For this reason, I strongly urge you and the members of your committee to hear testimony regarding pending criminal cases in a confidential, non-public hearing, with the transcript to be made public only after the conclusion of the criminal trials.

The Arizona Supreme Court's Rules of Professional Conduct (Ethics Rules) prohibit prosecutors from giving out any information or making any statements likely to have a material prejudicial effect on pending criminal proceedings. Prosecutors may not discuss information that may be inadmissible as evidence in a trial or that would risk prejudicing an impartial trial.

We are prohibited from making statements about the character, credibility, reputation or criminal record of an accused or a witness, or the identity of a witness, or the expected testimony of a party or witness. We are also prohibited from making any public statements about the existence or contents of any confession, admission, or statements given by a defendant, or on a refusal to make a statement.

The Ethics Rules also prevent prosecutors from sharing prior to trial any information about forensic examinations, including the performance or results of any such examinations or tests or the refusal or failure of any person to submit to an examination or test, or the identity or nature of any physical evidence expected to be presented at the trial.

The Rules go on to direct us as prosecutors to exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making any statements that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making.

It is evident that much of what criminal prosecutors are strictly forbidden from discussing in public will be the subject of inquiry to the witnesses you have called to testify at your hearing on Tuesday. As a result, in accordance with my ethical duties as a prosecutor, I must discourage witnesses who are investigators or who may be assisting our prosecutions from revealing the above types of information in a public forum prior to trial.

I am copying this letter to the police and CPS employees who are associated with the prosecution of this case to caution them regarding their public testimony before your committee and to remind them of our ethical obligations to ensure fair trials.

In order that your committee may achieve its goal of learning all the facts at this point in time, prior to the two criminal cases going to trial, I strongly urge that your committee hear any testimony regarding the facts of the pending criminal cases in a confidential, non-public forum.

I also urge that the testimony before your committee made in open, public session be restricted to, and focused on, how best CPS can protect our children, and what we can do to assist and help CPS to fulfill its duties and obligations for the protection of our most vulnerable victims.

Your cooperation will help ensure that we will be able to bring wrongdoers to justice through a fair trial process. Once the trials have concluded you could make all the testimony public. I appreciate your consideration.

Sincerely,

Barbara LaWall
Pima County Attorney

Here's Representative Adams' response. 

Dear Ms. LaWall:

I have reviewed your email to me expressing your concern over the propriety of the House Government Committee to hold hearings to discuss possible statutory changes to the laws regulating Arizona's Child Protective Services.  These committee hearings will focus on two recent CPS cases that tragically resulted in the deaths of three children whose lives CPS was entrusted to protect.

As I read your email at this very late date, I do not share your opinion that these legislative hearings will affect the pending criminal prosecution of the people who killed Brandon Williams and Ariana Payne.  As you know, Tyler Payne is still missing and presumed dead.

Ms. Carolyn Atwater, contacted your office on September 6, 2007, almost three weeks ago, to discuss the hearings.  Ms. Atwater placed a second call to your office on September 11, 2007.  During that call Ms. Atwater informed you of the Committee's intent to hold hearings on programmatic changes to CPS.  At that time, you offered proposals to improve the function of CPS  such as a locally run hotline.  Furthermore, I, along with my Vice-chairman, Representative Jonathan Paton, announced these committee hearings back in June.  Since then, dozens of stories have been written about these tragedies.  In fact, months ago, a court ordered the release of the records in these two cases to Tucson's Daily Star finding that the public need for information outweighed any privacy concerns.  Interestingly, you, as the Pima County Attorney, did not oppose the release of the records during the court hearing.  It is these redacted materials -- that have already been made public and have been the subject of several newspaper articles -- that will be discussed.  Most importantly, CPS, after consultation with their attorney, agreed to discuss these cases in public.  I hope that this last hour communication is not simply an effort to discourage inquiry of CPS.  For these reasons, I am at a loss to explain your cautionary email that you sent less than twenty-four hours before the hearing. 

I understand that you and those in your office who are participating in the prosecution of these cases may be unable to come before the Committee and answer questions.  I hope you have had the opportunity to review the agenda for the hearing.  As you will see, the CPS personnel identified to testify before the committee are not witnesses.  They have had no direct communications with the children or parents.  These persons are CPS managers, supervisors and directors. The committee agenda provides notice to the public that it may go into executive session to discuss confidential matters.  I have consulted with House attorneys on this matter.  I find that since this material has already been released to the public, there is little or no reason why a legislative committee would not hold public hearings on the matter.  These cases illustrate how CPS acts to protect children and they also highlight the need for CPS reform.  In fact, I believe that it is in the public's best interest to shed the bright light of public scrutiny on these cases.  Arizona's most vulnerable children must be protected.  I know you share that concern.

I hope this response addresses your concerns about tomorrow's hearing so we can move forward together to advocate for the protection of Arizona's children.

So, I will hold the committee hearing as planned - in public.

Sincerely,
Kirk Adams
Chairman, House Government Committee

Up Against LaWall

Sources in Tucson confirm that Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall is going to refuse to enforce the new employer sanctions law by declaring that her office has a conflict in EVERY case in which the law is violated.  Incredibly, LaWall will argue that her office defends businesses when they are victims of, say, bad checks or other schemes, so she has a conflict if she tries to prosecute members of the business community.

This argument is, of course, ridiculous.  The businesses aren't LaWall's clients, she prosecutes bad check writers on behalf of the state.  And even if her argument were true, it wouldn't justify a blanket exemption. 

No.  LaWall is punting.  She is simply refusing to enforce a law that she doesn't like and handing all of the prosecutions over to the Attorney General's Office. 

I have one question. What is she going to do with the $500,000 appropriation that her office received to enforce the statute?  I'm assuming that she will be writing the state a check. 

Only 30% of Cops are Killed by Illegal Aliens

Here's a truly astonishing argument from a Republic editorial. 

The paper is arguing that local outrage to the murder of officer Nick Erfle has led to a "few loud voices of fear and anger"

Self-righteous radio talkers, angry letter writers and mad bloggers claim to know exactly the right lesson to take away from this horrible event.

The editorial writers are concerned that people are overreacting.  After all the Republic points out that:

Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris says 10 Phoenix police officers have been killed in the past 20 years. Only Officer Erfle's murder and two others were committed by illegal immigrants.

Golly, of the cops who have been gunned down in the line of duty, only 30% of them have been killed by illegal aliens. 

That makes me feel much better. 

It's Not the Economy Stupid.

The state is facing a large budget shortfall and the AP's Paul Davenport does a good job laying it out here. 

When Gov. Janet Napolitano took office in 2003, erasing a budget shortfall topped her to-do list. Now, nine months into her second term, a similar problem involving red ink confronts the Democratic governor and the Republican-led Legislature.

With tax collections falling below expectations, Napolitano is projecting a $600 million shortfall in the current $10.6 billion budget.

There will be a concerted push by the spending lobby to blame the the shortfall on an economic downturn.  But with apologies to James Carvil, let me be the first to say "It's Not the Economy Stupid."

This graph from the Arizona Tax Research Association shows that the real culprit is spending.  Revenue has nearly doubled since Governor Napolitano inherited a billion dollar budget deficit, but spending has increased at an even faster pace.  Now the state is back to a billion dollar shortfall. 

The effort to blame the economy will gain some traction with voters and the media.  After all, they will say, the Governor clearly isn't responsible for the downturn in the housing market.  However, if state spending had grown at a reasonable pace over the last five years, the state would be enjoying a significant surplus. 

The current budget assumed that tax revenue growth would maintain its super-charged pace.  Instead, this year's revenue growth can only be described as healthy, or substantial.  But the accelerated spending of the last five years can't be maintained by healthy revenue growth.  Heck, it can't even be maintained by robust revenue growth. 

 

Tomahawk Job

We are seeing a classic example of Mainstream Media Herd Mentality in the bizarre and unconscionable treatment of ASU Law professor Kevin Gover. 

Even a cursory analysis of the Tribune's version of the story shows that it is a badly researched hatchet job. 

(I'm not writing this piece because I think you care about Kevin Gover.  I'm writing this piece because it's a great example of the media taking someone apart based on faulty logic and flimsy evidence.  This is an example of how journalistic sloppiness destroys careers and lives.  It was stories like these that caused me to start writing espresso pundit.  I urge you to follow the analysis, learn the techniques and be on guard for this type of MSM behavior.)

Here's the first few paragraphs of the story. 

American Indian leaders are speaking against the hiring of an ASU law professor to lead a museum on the history of the nation’s tribes.

Last week, the Smithsonian Institute named Kevin Gover the next director of the National Museum of the American Indian. Gover, a Pawnee from Oklahoma, has taught classes on federal regulation and Indian law at Arizona State University since 2003.

Some critics point to Gover’s work as director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs from 1997 to 2000 as the reason he shouldn’t head the museum.

Gover has never worked for a museum.

“An appointment such as Gover’s, laden with political baggage, raises its own questions,” said an editorial in Indian Country Today, a national weekly newspaper.

Much of the opposition, however, is aimed at Smithsonian officials, who chose Gover without consulting the museum’s board of trustees. The Washington Post reported on the dispute Wednesday.

Let's examine the Trib's points one by one.

Gover has never worked for a museum. 

This is a classic fallacy.  Notice that the sentence stands alone?  It is a self-contained argument so the reader is forced to assume that museum experience is a job requirement and that Gover is somehow unqualified because he has never worked at a museum.

But Gover is being appointed Director not Curator of the Museum.  He isn't building exhibits, he's setting policy and raising money--a task for which he is perfectly qualified.

Gover is a Native American Lawyer from Oklahoma who is an expert in Indian and Regulatory law and has extensive experience in Washington and connections to the Democratic Congress.  These are the EXACT qualifications of the previous museum Director.

Gover was a member of the Clinton Administration and founded American Indians for Clinton/Gore.  With Democrats firmly in control of Congress, Gover is an ideal candidate to Direct the museum. 

The other objections fall into three categories. 1) Gover's tenure at BIA was rocky.  2) Some Indian leaders oppose his appointment and 3) some members of the Museum's Board are unhappy with the process. 

These objections don't hold up to even cursory examination. 

1) Gover's BIA tenure was Rocky. 

The BIA is a mess.  It has a 100 year history of screwing up the accounts that it maintains for Native Americans.  In the early 90s, a woman named Elouise Cobell sued the BIA over the accounts and Judge Lamberth placed Interior Secretary Babbitt, Treasury Secretary Rubin and BIA Director Gover in contempt.  When Bush became President, judge Lamberth also held Secretary Gale Norton and her BIA Director in contempt.  As the tone of Judge Lamberth's orders got more shrill, he was removed from the case.  The Accounts are still screwed up, but no one claims that it was Gover who messed them up.

2) Some Indian Leaders Oppose Gover. 

This is where it gets interesting.  The point about Indian Leader opposition comes from two sources:  an editorial in the influential newspaper called Indian Country, and the Washington Post.  But further examination shows that the editorial in Indian Country was based on an OP Ed piece written by none other than Elouise Cobell--the woman who sued Gover when he was BIA director.

And the Washington Post piece?  It was based on a press release by--you guessed it--Elouise Cobell.

In fact, Cobell's attack on Gover was immediate and effective.  Here's how Indian Country described it. 

The day after the Smithsonian Institution announced the hiring of one-time BIA chief Kevin Gover as the next director of the National Museum of the American Indian (a so-called unit museum of the Smithsonian), trust funds lawsuit lead plaintiff Elouise Cobell reeled off a tempestuous condemnation of his integrity, reputation and commitment to Indians.

''Kevin Gover was held in contempt of court in the class action lawsuit over the federal government's admitted mishandling of Indian trust accounts,'' Cobell stated in a Sept. 12 media release.

3) some members of the Museum's Board are unhappy with the process

Indeed there is a small faction of the Museum's Board that are unhappy with the way Gover was chosen.  Incredibly, that faction is led by... Elouise Cobell.  Here's the letter to the editor that she published in the Washington Post.

One woman is responsible for the suit, the opinion of "Indian Leaders" and the objections by the Board.  All of this information is readily available yet none of it is disclosed in the articles.

So of the four charges, one is based on a fallacy and three are based on the complaints of one person.  In fact, Gover seems to enjoy widespread support in the Native American Community.  The Tribune article lists several supporters yet finds no criticism other than those generated by Cobell.

The proper way to write the article would have been to point out Gover's wide support and high qualifications and then mention that the support is not unanimous because a woman named Elouise Cobell is really ticked off at him.

Instead of analyis, research and fairness, the Mainstream Media defaults to personal attacks, fallacy, and herd mentality.

Forget law, Gover should start a blog. 

 

The End of a Dream

The story of the illegal immigrant who killed a Phoenix police officer earlier this week took a strange twist.  It turns out that Erik Jovani Martinez was  "Dream Baby."

Martinez was brought to the United States as an infant and lived his whole life here. Clearly, he also was a career criminal, racking up a dozen arrests before he turned 18 and continuing to have brushes with the law afterward.

The media like to portray Dream Babies as victims.  These kids are all would-be Rhodes Scholars whose efforts to cure cancer have been stymied by Russell Peace and his cruel band of Xenophobic zealots. 

Some of these kids, of course,are really good kids, but some of them are career thugs.

Congress and the media are working to carve out exceptions for immigrants who were brought here illegally while they were children.  These exemptions would provide a path to citizenship for immigrants who could provide:  Proof of having arrived in the United States before reaching 16 years of age; Proof of residence in the United States for a least five (5) consecutive years since their date of arrival. Having graduated from an American High School, or obtained a GED. "Good moral character," essentially defined as the absence of a significant criminal record (or any drug charges whatsoever).

Martinez was a career thug who obviously wouldn't have qualified under the act.  But perhaps there should be a "Nightmare Baby" component of the Dream Act.  Immediate deportation for illegal immigrants who have become adults and have a record of thuggery. 

Indeed, Maritinez was deported initially, but returned immediately.  At that point my compassion ends. 

If you are here illegally, cause trouble, get deported and get caught in the country again, then we are talking about lengthy prison terms. 

The catch and release policy makes the US a laughingstock.  Dream Act advocates would have a lot more credibility if in addition to advocating compassion for the Dream Babies, they were willing to advocate discipline for the Nightmare Babies. 

This Looks Interesting.

Legislative Alert - Rep Russell Pearce

Legislative Workshop November 13th
Hosted by Rep. Russell Pearce

Friends,

I am excited to tell you about a Legislative Workshop that is being
conducted at the Arizona State Capitol.  It is designed for Arizona citizens
to help them understand the procedures and processes of the legislature.
Topics that will be discussed are:  how a bill is drafted, how a bill moves
through the legislature, the Arizona Legislative Information System (ALIS),
the Request to Speak Program and how to more effectively use the legislative
website.

There will be a lot of information provided and an opportunity to ask
questions. 

Date:  November 13, 2007
Check in 7:30 AM
Time:  8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon
Location:  Arizona State Capitol - House of Representatives
Parking:  Wesley Bolin Plaza
Cost:  *FREE*

To register** you must purchase  a (FREE)  ticket. There is not cost. go to
www.legislativealerts.sirbarratt.com. There will be a link there to get
tickets. Again, this is FREE. Limit 2 tickets per-person. Please call Eric
Johnson at 480-892-5154 if you are disabled and need assistance with
seating.

**For security reasons "walk-ins" or "day of the event" registration will
not be allowed.  It is imperative that registration is completed early.
Registration ends November 5th or until all seats are reserved.

You don't want to miss this opportunity.  We only have a limited number of
seats on the House Floor and in the Gallery so you must register early. 

For additional information and tickets go to
www.legislativealerts.sirbarratt.com

I hope to see you there - Russell

Finally, an Accurate Description

From  AzCentral:

The illegal immigrant who fatally shot a Phoenix police officer on Tuesday had been arrested by Scottsdale police last year, just two months after he was deported from the country.

What, he's not a "migrant," and the people who oppose his being in the country aren't "anti immigration advocates?"

The Star gets it right as well. 

The man who shot and killed a Phoenix police officer before he himself later was fatally shot by authorities was an illegal immigrant, a federal official said Wednesday.

The Last Acceptable form of Discrimination II

I've been providing examples government discrimination against religion.  Here's another great example from the University System.  Non-resident tuition to Arizona schools is about triple the cost of in-state tuition, and the Residency office is very aggressive--and rightly so--about weeding out pretenders.  After all, there are plenty of kids here from, say, California who intend to work in California, and are just in Arizona for school.

The Residency office also understands that some kids are life-long Arizonans who get their undergraduate degrees in other states.   When they come back to Arizona for graduate school, the Residency office correctly classifies those kids Arizonans--unless they go on a mission.

That's right.  If you are born and raised in Mesa and go to BYU, then you are considered a resident if you come back to ASU for law school.  But if you go to Bolivia for 2 years, the Residency office refuses to grant you in-state tuition when you return. 

It seems like the students could easily explain that they have no intention of living in Bolivia after law school.  But the Residency office isn't buying it.  To its credit the law school administration works to appeal the denial of residency status, but it's a lot of work and has to be done case by case.

I can't imagine the legislature is happy with this result, and this seems like something that could be fixed by a bill. 

In fact, there's probably someone out there who could fix it with a phone call.

The Movement Grows

Here's an interesting development.  Check out this blog entry about the implications of the Sutherland institutes' support of vouchers. 

School Voucher Bombshell

Utah's expansive school voucher program has gotten a huge boost.

The Sutherland Institute, a conservative Utah think tank, has released a report entitled "Vouchers, Vows and Vexations" in support of the voucher program.

Big deal, right?

Wrong. This is Utah. The Sutherland Institute tends to align itself with the LDS church. And, the report claims that that the LDS faith would be broadly threatened by the failure of the voucher initiative.

Here's the background. Last spring Utah's legislature approved the most comprehensive voucher program in the country. Through efforts of the NEA, UEA, state education officials, and a timid judiciary and executive, this program was passed back to voters for a referendum this November. This is an off-year election, so the referendum was expected to fail as many voters would not be expected to show up.

Enter The Sutherland Institute. They make extraordinary dual claims: 1) that the voucher program is consistent with how the LDS culture has historically viewed public education, and that 2) the view of contemporary education imposed from the Federal level is a threat to that culture.

No honest person who has studied the historical record of Utahns ... could conclude anything other than that they would have embraced what we now call vouchers. [pg. 40]

... The public school system ... often does not represent the very people it claims to support. This view certainly reflects the LDS Church experience ... [pg. 7]

This is likely to resonate deeply with Utah voters: precedents set by the pioneers are very important to Utahns, and the view that their religion continues to be systematically persecuted runs deep.

Objectively, this position is laughable. Public education in Utah is already close to what parents in other states would regard as parochial. LDS viewpoints pervade history, civics, and ethics teaching - as they should if we are to take Federalism seriously. Further, time from the school day is allotted for LDS students to attend classes at LDS Institutes of Religion, typically located adjacent to high schools - a system that according to the letter of the law is identical to what Catholic students did in the public schools I attended in upstate New York, only far more pervasive.

But, it is the subjective position that is important in this case. The 1/3 of Utahns who are not Mormons, and who are predominantly Democratic, are inclined to favor the voucher program as a way to control their children's religious exposure. The Republican party machine in the state already supports them. The problem is getting the voters to turn out. If The Sutherland Institute can mobilize voters who are ambivalent about vouchers to view this as a pro-Mormon issue, then it is reasonable to expect it to pass easily.

Bottom line, this is an unprecedented salvo in the national battle over vouchers, and one that probably could only be made in Utah. But, if the referendum passes, the motivation will be forgotten once the camel's nose is under the tent flap.

Utah's expansive school voucher program has gotten a huge boost.

The Sutherland Institute, a conservative Utah think tank, has released a report entitled "Vouchers, Vows and Vexations" in support of the voucher program.

Big deal, right?

Wrong. This is Utah. The Sutherland Institute tends to align itself with the LDS church. And, the report claims that that the LDS faith would be broadly threatened by the failure of the voucher initiative.

Here's the background. Last spring Utah's legislature approved the most comprehensive voucher program in the country. Through efforts of the NEA, UEA, state education officials, and a timid judiciary and executive, this program was passed back to voters for a referendum this November. This is an off-year election, so the referendum was expected to fail as many voters would not be expected to show up.

Enter The Sutherland Institute. They make extraordinary dual claims: 1) that the voucher program is consistent with how the LDS culture has historically viewed public education, and that 2) the view of contemporary education imposed from the Federal level is a threat to that culture.

No honest person who has studied the historical record of Utahns ... could conclude anything other than that they would have embraced what we now call vouchers. [pg. 40]

... The public school system ... often does not represent the very people it claims to support. This view certainly reflects the LDS Church experience ... [pg. 7]

This is likely to resonate deeply with Utah voters: precedents set by the pioneers are very important to Utahns, and the view that their religion continues to be systematically persecuted runs deep.

Objectively, this position is laughable. Public education in Utah is already close to what parents in other states would regard as parochial. LDS viewpoints pervade history, civics, and ethics teaching - as they should if we are to take Federalism seriously. Further, time from the school day is allotted for LDS students to attend classes at LDS Institutes of Religion, typically located adjacent to high schools - a system that according to the letter of the law is identical to what Catholic students did in the public schools I attended in upstate New York, only far more pervasive.

But, it is the subjective position that is important in this case. The 1/3 of Utahns who are not Mormons, and who are predominantly Democratic, are inclined to favor the voucher program as a way to control their children's religious exposure. The Republican party machine in the state already supports them. The problem is getting the voters to turn out. If The Sutherland Institute can mobilize voters who are ambivalent about vouchers to view this as a pro-Mormon issue, then it is reasonable to expect it to pass easily.

Bottom line, this is an unprecedented salvo in the national battle over vouchers, and one that probably could only be made in Utah. But, if the referendum passes, the motivation will be forgotten once the camel's nose is under the tent flap.

A Matter of Convenience

The Governor was out of town last week, but insists that she's still in charge despite the plain language of the Constitution. 

Janet Napolitano says the Arizona Constitution's "anachronistic" provision that says she loses her gubernatorial authority when absent from the state is the law as written but that reality is another matter.

A provision that dates from statehood nearly a century ago says a governor's powers go to the secretary of state when the governor is absent.

Citing improved communications now available, senior Napolitano aides have said over the years that they believe Napolitano retains her authority as governor even when outside the state.

Improved communications?  The first transatlantic telegram occurred between Queen Victoria and James Buchanan in 1858.  Arizona's founders certainly understood instant communications.  No.  I don't think the governors "living" interpretation of our Constitution is based on improvements in technology.  The interpretation is based on politics.  The second in command is a Republican.  After all, when Napolitano was supporting Secretary Brewer's opponent, the Governor was quick to point out that he would be in charge when she was out of town. 

Notice the yellow note in the right hand corner.  That's right, you need to vote for Israel Torres because he's going to be Governor when I'm out of town.  Now that Brewer is the Secretary of State, Napolitano is Governor as long as she has her blackberry. 

 

Straight from the Source

Make sure you check out Espresso Straight News for news straight from the source.  Be sure to mark it as a favorite.  You can also just click the big blue button on the left and go to espresso straight directly from espresso pundit.  http://www.espressostraight.com/

Your Slip is Showing

It's fun to read blog entries from local reporters.  The conversational tone causes them to let their guard down and we occasionally get a Freudian Slip that provides a glimpse into their biases.  Those biases color their reporting as well, but they work harder to cover the tracks.  Here's a great example from the Republic's Mary Jo Pitzl.   

Observers, such as the pro-woman Arizona List, say that women seem to gain a large degree of credibility from the law-and-order credentials that come with being attorney general.

"Pro-woman" Arizona List?  Hmm.  As opposed to, say, "anti-woman?"  Isn't everyone "pro-woman?"  How about the Crisis Pregnancy Center?  Is it "pro-woman."  How about the Center for Arizona Policy, or Karen Johnson?  Are they "pro-woman?"

No, "pro-woman" is a code word for organizations like the Arizona List.   Here's how the Arizona List describes itself. 

Arizona List is a grassroots donor network supporting pro-choice women Democrats running for the Arizona State Legislature, county and municipal offices, and school boards. We are modeled after EMILY's List and are committed to increasing the number of pro-choice women Democrats elected to office in Arizona.

Pitzl isn't trying to express an opinion.  Her statement reflects an underlying assumption that is so deeply ingrained that she doesn't even notice it.  Pro-choice Democrats are the ones who support women and they are in an epic struggle with the other side--the anti-choice Republicans--who are by definition "anti-woman."  Pitzl doesn't see this as a policy difference, it's a moral issue...good versus evil, right versus wrong.  And we know whose side she is on. 

Remember that the next time she writes a story about a pro-life candidate.  (I certainly will.)

The Last Acceptable form of Discrimination

These two stories provide a great example of the last acceptable form of discrimination.

The first is from the UA.

A Christian-themed concert took place as planned Friday night at the University of Arizona despite student-body leaders' denying more than $4,000 in funding they'd promised organizers days earlier.
Funding was pulled in a broad bylaw change approved by ASUA — Associated Students of the University of Arizona — this week that will also affect any other club events with blatantly religious or political messages.

Concerns about objectivity also were raised because at the same meeting, ASUA approved funding for an ad to run in the student newspaper during "Coming Out Week." The ad will be run by a student-government-affiliated gay-rights organization.

That's right, no funding if your organization is "blatantly religious."  What that generally means is "blatantly Christian."  The Muslims and wicka groups do fine on University campuses. 

The next example is also from the Star.

The Arizona Life Coalition charges in legal papers that a state commission that reviews requests for special plates acted illegally in rejecting its application. The lawsuit asks the three-judge panel to order the members of the Arizona License Plate Commission to approve the plate.

"The state must have the power to decline to express viewpoints that it does not wish to express," Morrow wrote in the appellate briefs. "Many Arizonans may be offended if they believe that Arizona is sponsoring a pro-choice message, just as many Arizonans may be offended if they believe that Arizona is sponsoring a pro-life message."

If the state only wants "non-offensive" messages on its license plates then it needs to stick to "The Grand Canyon State."  As soon as the state establishes a forum for messages to be displayed, it can't pick and choose the messages that get presented.

Here's an editorial that completely misses the point  in today's Star.

Unfortunately, it appears Arizona opened a proverbial can of worms by allowing nonpolitical, noncontroversial slogans to appear on its license plates.

The state offers license plates with the University of Arizona logo. Others identify winners of the Purple Heart, members of the Navajo Nation, advocates of child-abuse prevention and support for spaying and neutering pets. There are 22 such slogans listed on the Motor Vehicles Department's Web site, in addition to the standard license plate.

That part is correct.  The state opened the can of worm by establishing a forum for people to express themselves.  The Star goes on to talk about how much it supports free speech.  (They don't actually start with "some of my best friends are black," but it's the same arguement.)

After conceeding that the license plates are a forum for speech and pontificating on how much they support free speech, the editorial board reaches its inevitable

Each side should have its say, but not as the pro-life groups want it, on our license plates.

That's right.  Speech that the Star doesn't like should be limited to a different forum. 

It's tempting for University organizations to fund all the groups except the Christian one, or for the license plate commission to approve all the messages except the pro-life one.  But we have a Constitution to prevent discrimination against groups that are out of cultural favor--especially the ones that are out of favor with the hapless Arizona Daily Star.

Party Time

The Espresso Pundit Anniversary Party was a great success.  We had 85 guests; Here are some of the pictures. 

This will give you a sense of the size of the group.  This is Joyce Schweikert, Jim Waring and Tina Allen at the buffet table.

Congressman John Shadegg, Stan Barnes and myself. 

Kyrsten Sinema wins the "in the Lion's Den Award."  I really appreciated her attending.  She filled out her own name tag and it says "Token Liberal."

(Right) Here's another good sport, The Republic's Richard DeUriarte with David and Joyce Schweikert.

I always forget how huge Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne is.  Here he is with my wife Debbie. 

On the Right we have a power table:  Commissioners Kris Mayes, Bill Mundell, Senator Barbara Leff, Connie Wilhelm, Ephram Cordova and Erik Ellis. 

Former Republic reporter turned PR bigwig Robbie Sherwood talks with Senator Bob Burns, Gayle Burns and Senator Jim Waring.

(Right) Professor Hurwitz tells me a very funny Civil Procedure story.  That Erie Doctrine is a hoot.

Sen. Waring with Rep Barto and Stan Barnes.  (Stan sure knows how to work a room.  The captions on all my shots of legislators are "Sen. X with Stan Barnes.")

Barnes with Com. Kris Mayes.

David Schweikert can't believe that Barry Aarons is serious.  While Nancy Barto looks on.

That's a pretty good sample of the pictures.  I want to thank everyone for coming.  We had a great time and I really look forward to year 4 of Espresso Pundit.  This year, my goal is to write more often (and lose 5 pounds.)  When I'm done with work, finished with my homework and the kids are tucked in, I'll make my way to the laptop.

It's been a great 3 years.  Thank you for all of your support. 

UPDATE:  In light of some comments by the Klute, I wanted to clarify the program.  I made a presentation called "The 5 Stages in the Life of a Blogger."  Stage 3 "Avoiding Disaster" included a bunch of funny and interesting pictures of elected officials.  I had the standard Dukakis in the tank and John Kerry in the Bunny Suit pictures.  I also had Jeff Flake on a Humvee, JD Hayworth on a Tank, Jon Kyl and Gabby Giffords in a helicopter.  I sprinkled in my senior picture, a  picture of me with Barry Gibb hair, Al Gore with at the Buddhist Temple and Hillary with Hsu. 

The Klute mentioned the Hayworth picture, and he is right that it got a laugh.  But I was in no way singling JD out--any more than I was singling out Flake or Kyl. 

   

Anniversary Party Update

The Espresso Pundit Anniversary Party is this Saturday from 9:00AM to 11:00AM at the Phoenix Country Club.  I have a few tickets left, and this is your last chance to RSVP. Brunch will be served; dress is business casual and the event is free to those who have RSVPd.  I'm expecting about 100 people. 

Here's the Agenda:

8:45 to 9:15 Check In and Mingle

9:15  Welcome, Introduction of Guests.

9:30 Brunch (make sure to take the opportunity to mingle a bit)

10:00 Presentation: The 5 Stages in the Life of a Blogger.

10:30 Additional Introductions and final  Mingling. 

It's Not Like they Had Any Credibility Left Anyway.

This from Reuters.

An ad criticizing the top U.S. general in Iraq raised charges on Thursday that The New York Times slashed its advertising rates for political reasons -- an accusation denied by the paper.

The ad by liberal anti-war group moveon.org ran on Monday, the day of Gen. David Petraeus's testimony to Congress about the war and how long U.S. forces will stay in Iraq.

Moveon.org confirmed it paid $65,000 for the full page ad headlined "General Petraeus or General Betray Us."

The New York Post ran a story on Thursday asking why the basic rate of $181,692 for such an ad was discounted.

Cutting the Dog's Tail an Inch at a time

The Star is running with the story linking Giffords to MoveOn.org.  It looks like she's trying to walk the tightrope between offending her base and supporting her district.  She's calling the ad "inexcusable" but keeping MoveOn's money.  Since the district is fairly moderate and has an extensive military presence, I don't think they will be placated with her statement. 

Giffords, who was traveling back to Tucson from Washington Tuesday, was more harsh in a prepared statement through spokesman C.J. Karamargin, calling the ad "inexcusable."

Giffords also decried the "partisan attempt to make hay" out of the ad.

MoveOn.org is a liberal political action committee founded in 1998.

In 2006, the group contributed $6,918 to Giffords' campaign for Congress — $5,000 in direct contributions and $1,918 in "independent expenditures," or money spent on the candidate without his or her prior knowledge. MoveOn.org donated $5,000 to Grijalva.

Who is Betraying Whom?

If you are a blog reader, you will be quite familiar with MoveOn.org's despicable attack ad on General Petraeus.  This full page ad appeared in the New York Times and refers to a great American as "General Betray Us."  Cute.

House Democrats have been asked to repudiate the ad and to call on Move.On to apologize. 

Here's a heated exchange that occurred during General Petreaus' testimony.

Florida Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen: Once again, I offer my colleagues the opportunity to use this hearing to distance themselves from the despicable ad that was published today, calling into question the patriotism of Gen. Petraeus.

Hawaii Democrat Rep. Neil Abercrombie: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Nobody has to distance themselves from something they weren’t associated with.

Rep. Abercrombie's response is a fair one. He isn't associated with MoveOn.org.  But there are eight sitting Congressional Representatives--including one of our own--who accepted money from MoveOn.Org

House candidates

Giffords, Gabrielle (D-AZ) $5,000
Gillibrand, Kirsten E (D-NY) $5,000
Hare, Philip G (D-IL) $5,000
Hodes, Paul W (D-NH) $5,000
Murphy, Patrick J (D-PA) $88,112
Perlmutter, Edwin G (D-CO) $5,000
Rodriguez, Ciro D (D-TX) $163,643
Sestak, Joe (D-PA) $5,000

So what's the reaction from the Giffords camp?   Congresswoman Giffords' district contains Fort Huachuca and she as many constituents from Davis-Monthan Air Force Base.  Does the ad represent her views?  Is she going to call on MoveOn to repudiated it?  Is she going to return the money? 

Who has betrayed whom? 

(To view the ad in its original size Click Here )

Tribune Update

We've been waiting to see what the changes are at the Tribune.  Here's the word from a source inside the paper. 

Greg

The bottom line is that in October the Tribune will go for a two pronged approach – paid subscriptions with a free version of the Tribune.

The new paper will be highly zoned, seven days a week with an A section reduced to tabloid size, but tailored to a neighborhood - the example mentioned was that Chandler would have two versions.

People who pay for a subscription will get the tab sized A section with the rest of the paper (business, sports etc.) inserted.  The A section will be bundled and racked at convenient locations and maybe delivered to driveways for free for everyone else.  The point is to get as many copies of the paper out and about as possible.

As to cancelling subscriptions –we were told that the Trib paid $500,000 a year to deliver 2,900 papers north of

Bell Road

.  The idea was to cancel the 2,900 subscriptions and instead put the money into printing more papers to get out so that advertisers  see the value in the paper.

9/11 Memorial Update

I'll be on Channel 5 between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM to discuss the 9/11 memorial. 

If you want to know how bad the memorial is, check the schedule of the local politicians.  Will anyone be making a speech in front of the memorial tomorrow?  The Governor was there for the dedication, but I can't imagine that she will be there for the anniversary. 

Isn't that astonishing?  The Arizona 9/11 memorial is such an embarrassment that the Governor won't go near it on the 6th anniversary of 9/11.  What a shame. 

Unfortunately, the memorial can't be fixed.  If the offensive statements are removed, only the banal statements will remain.  The monument will go from offensive to trivial.  The monument is also physically unattractive and poorly designed--it has no drainage and little shade. 

The only solution is to start over or to forget it.  This year, the local officials are going to forget it.  But that's not much of a long-term strategy. 

Frankly, the Governor is unwise to ignore it.  Since she has national political ambitions, there will eventually be national news crews in town to tell the American People "Who is Janet Napolitano?  She may be on a presidential ticket, nominated for Attorney General, up for a Supreme Court seat, and the media will need a story line.  They will need a way to introduce her and define her in 30 seconds. 

The film of her dedicating a 9/11 memorial that is critical of the United States military will dominate that 30 seconds.  You may think I'm exaggerating, but you would be naive.  The Senate subpoenaed Robert Bork's movie rentals and library records.   The Republicans combed through Geraldine Ferraro's father's business records despite the fact that he died while she was young. 

By the time she moves on, the Governor will have presided over the Memorial for 5 years.  Is she going to attend the initial dedication and then ignore it for 5 years?  Is she going to distance herself and let the committee make minor changes?   Will that solve her problem?  Maybe in Arizona, where she has a fawning press corp and 60% approval ratings, but it's not going to work when Fox News and Rush Limbaugh present her to the nation. 

No, as unfair as it is, when she takes the national stage the Memorial will define her.

Think I'm exaggerating?  Just ask John Kerry if he's ever been to Cambodia. 

The Governor's going to be Swift Boated.  She needs to tear it down. 

Major Shake Up at the Tribune

I've written a few posts about changes in the Tribune subscription structure.  First, sources told me that the Tribune will no longer be charging for subscriptions.  The paper denies this...but not strongly.  Next, I began to receive reports from people who have canceled their subscriptions but continued to receive the paper.  I've also had reports of Tribunes being delivered free to every driveway in certain neighborhoods. 

Now we have this blockbuster.  I friend of mine in Fountain Hills just received this letter saying that Tribune is no longer delivering to homes in his area.  (Click to enlarge.) 

This letter, combined with previous reports, makes me think that the Tribune is, indeed, headed for a major change in its subscription policy. 

UPDATE:  If you read the comment section and my previous posts, you will realize that the Tribune and the Republic often continue to deliver the paper even though the subscriber cancels.  But this is unique.  Check out this letter. 

Greg

Some time after the election I let my subscription lapse – I ignored their requests to renew and figured we’re getting it all on-line, etc. and so I never renewed and didn’t pay. Of course they kept delivering it, which was fine with me. A few months later I get a letter – not from the Trib but from a collection agency! They kept charging me when I didn’t renew and then turned it over to a collection agency when I didn’t pay!

The Scientific Method

Dear Friends:

Together we have won many battles in our ongoing efforts to secure our borders and protect our nation from the scourge of illegal immigration.  Whether the battle was Proposition 200 to deny public benefits from those here illegally and to protect the sanctity of the ballot box, our most recent success in passing employer sanctions at the State Legislature, or our successes in between, our combined efforts have turned the tide here in Arizona.

Read the whole thing.

When you want to test a theory, you must hold everything constant except the variable that you are trying to test.  I believe that Congressman Flake and Rep. Pearce are identical on every issue except immigration and on that one issue they are polar opposites. 

Flake will have a built in advantage that comes from incumbency.  He has the full backing of the Wall Street Journal and the Club for Growth.   He owns the earmark/pork issue, is staunchly conservative and has great teeth...so he starts with a 15 point advantage. 

But Flake and Pearce are both vocal supporters of opposite solutions to the immigration issue.  This race will be an referendum on Immigration. 

Pearce has been extremely successful at the ballot box.  The five immigration initiatives that have been on the ballot in the last 2 cycles have won with around 70% support. 

He is part of a small cadre of leaders who have managed not only to focus national attention on immigration, but also to drive the agenda.  Governor Napolitano went from supporting driver licenses for illegal immigrants to requesting national guard troops on the border.  Pearce's employer sanctions bill received two-thirds support in both chambers and was signed by the governor...this over the objections of the business community and every major newspaper.

However, immigration issues haven't translated into support for candidates.  Nearly 70% of Pima County voters supported the four "tough on immigration" ballot measures in the last election, but at the same time they voted overwhelmingly for Gabby Giffords over Randy Graf. 

Of course, the democrats tried to sound tough on immigration in the last election.  Harry Mitchell attacked J.D. Hayworth from the right on immigration.  So we don't have a clear picture of the issue.

This race will be different.  Pearce and Flake are national leaders on their respective sides of the immigration issue and that issue is the only difference between them. 

This is going to be a very interesting experiment. 

 

I Love Recycling

This is getting so easy.  The Republic is trotting out old stories, so I get to trot out old responses.  We can function on auto pilot. 

Last year the Republic ran a series of stories out of Kansas about hot gasoline.  The theory is that since gasoline expands when it gets hot, gasoline sold at a higher temperature is a rip off because it has less energy per gallon.

I exposed the logical fallacy of that reasoning in a piece I called "These Go to Eleven."

Almost exactly one year later, the Republic has trotted out the same old fallacy. 

Each time drivers fill their fuel tanks in Arizona's simmering summers, they likely see $1 or more evaporate.  Because gasoline expands in the heat, that's the estimated dollar amount of energy they purchase but they never receive.

Here's my response from last year.

"If you haven't seen the mockumentary This is Spinal Tap, you have missed a rare treat.  Here's a great scene in which Nigel explains the unique feature of his amp.

Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and...
Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?
Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.
Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder?
Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?
Marty DiBergi: I don't know.
Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.
Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?
Nigel Tufnel: [pause] These go to eleven.

Nigel never gets it.  It's like the joke I used on my kids when they were five.  "We are getting a large pizza, do you think we should cut it into 8 slices or 16?"  They look at me quizzically and I say. "Let's cut it into 16 because I'm really hungry."

The Republic is falling into the same trap with two A1 above the fold articles about the new scourge that were are facing...gasoline that is sold warm in the summer. 

"Hot" fuel is costing him the price of a good lunch today, Duke reckons, and as much as $700 a year.

Duke, you see, is one of the few Americans who realize that fuel is often sold at temperatures much hotter than the federal standard of 60 degrees. It's a standard agreed to nearly a century ago by the industry and regulators but virtually unknown to the average consumer.

Why is the Republic re-printing two stories from Kansas A1 above the fold to complain about warm gasoline?  It seems like a vehicle to bash "Big Oil" but it's pretty lame even with that as a goal.  Isn't there anything important happening locally?

More importantly, are they right?

Well, Duke may "reckon" that his warm gasoline is costing him money, but he's like Nigel "reckoning" that his amp plays louder at eleven. 

The price of gasoline floats according to supply and demand.  If the gas is warm throughout the city, then that will be reflected in the overall price.  It's just like switching to liters.  Is gas more expensive by the liter?  Obviously not. 

Sure, If a gallon costs $2.95 at 50 degrees, it's better than a gallon that costs $2.95 at 90 degrees.  But if all the other conditions remain the same, the market will charge less for summer gas than winter gas.  So while it is tempting to compare the same price per gallon at different temperatures and reckon like "Duke" that you are being ripped off.  The real comparison is $2.95 per gallon at 50 degrees and, say, $2.80 at 90 degrees.

The Republic will never understand the difference.  They just found a story from Kansas that seemed to score a few points against "Big Oil" and decided that they were the most important stories of the week.