Arizona's Own Espresso Pundit

A Final Note on Redistricting.

It's been interesting to watch the media establishment defend the redistricting process.  When we boil it down, the congressional maps were drawn by one person at home over a weekend--just like the founders intended.

Folks have asked me whether the state has a legal remedy and have mentioned the Texas Redistricting case.  You will recall that the Supreme Court threw out a Texas map that had been approved by the lower courts.   How does that affect Arizona?  Well, in the short run, it would actually hurt an Arizona Challenge.  Our Supreme Court has been appropriately deferential to our legislature over matters of redistricting and the US Supreme Court made the point that the Court in Texas had not been deferential enough.

However, there's another perspective:  The US Supreme Court's decision reinforces Legislative power over redistricting...but is the Independent Redistricting Commission really a substitute for the Legislature?

Here's what the US Constitutuion says about State Legislative authority over elections.

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;

Two questions:  Are the district boundaries part of the "Manner" that elections are held?  I would say the answer is a clear yes.  The Supreme Court can set criteria for the districts using Equal Protection, but the drawing of the districts within those criteria is up to the State Legislatures.

Second, is the "independent redistricting commission" the State Legislature?  Clearly not.  Sure, it stands in the shoes, assumes the duties, has delegated authority etc.  But can you stand in front of the US Supreme Court and say that the Manner of the next election was prescribed by the State Legislature?  Nope.

If the Texas case says anything, it's that the Supreme Court is deferential to the State Legislatures and also takes a fairly literal reading of the Constitution. 

I think that you are likely to see the Independent Commissions struck down in the next decade. 

Maybe Arizona would be a good test case.  After all, I'd like to see a little more media defense of our indefensible process. 

How To Create a Strawman

Whenever I write stories highlighting the decline of the media industry, folks use the comment section speculate on how bad life will be when the newspapers are gone.  I usually respond by pointing out the unethical and deceptive tricks that newspaper reporters use in order to advance their agenda.

Yesterday, I pointed out the media had labeled Lori Klein's bill that prohibited teachers from cussing in the classroom as "censorship."  

Here's a great example where the Republic's Lauri Roberts takes the same bill--teachers aren't allowed to cuss in the classroom--and redefines it so that it doesn't refer to the classroom....and then points out how ridiculous it is to try to regulate teacher's out-of-class behavior.

That's a classic strawman fallacy--create a false scenario and then knock it down.  Here's Robert's version.

So, if you're, say, in the teachers' lounge and you stub your toe and an inadvertent bad word comes out of your mouth, you'd be in trouble. If it's the first time, you'd be merely suspended. If it's the third, you'd be fired.

Never mind that the title of the bill is "Public classrooms; compliance with federal standards for media broadcasts concerning obscenity, indecency and profanity;"

Why actually cover the news?  It's a lot more fun when you can just make up a ridiculous scenario and then point out how ridiculous it is.

Eventually, people realize that they are being lied to and they cancel their subscriptions.  Advertisers then look for other ways to reach those people.  The paper experiences a drop in revenue and is forced to cut costs.  The paper loses the critical mass that it takes to actually be called a paper and shuts down.  Reporters will blame the internet, but the fault lies not in the stars, but in themselves.

Will the Last One Out Please Turn Out the Lights.

Gannett is offering another buyout. Jim Hopkins over at Gannett Watch has full coverage.    I thought this comment was especially interesting.

At The Arizona Republic, the buyout offer for 70 employees companywide turns out to be targeting 44 in the newsroom. Jim, how about a survey to find out what's happening at other properties? How many reporters and editors is Gannett going to lose? The 2008 buyouts took 800 years of experience out of the Republic newsroom. No count for this buyout as yet.

These stories make blogging easier.  First, I point out ways in which the newspapers offend readers.  Then I publish stories about circulation falling.   Then I publish stories about collapsing revenue followed by stories of cost cutting through furloughs, buyouts and layoffs. 

It's important that I start the cycle by printing stories about the newspaper offending it's readership. I don't want you to think that newspapers are simply victims of the internet age.  People cancel because the quality of the product is poor and offensive.  (I've archived hundreds of examples, but think of Benson portraying Brewer as Quadaffi on the same day the the newspaper announced an essay contest about the need for civility.)

The paper will continue cutting costs to stay ahead of losses and will eventualy lose its critical mass and will no longer function as a newspaper.

 

Cry Wolf....

Check out this headline from this morning's Republic.

What type of evil have Republicans brought this time? Well, it turns out that Republicans don't think that teachers should be allowed to use the F word in the classroom.  The bill is narrowly tailored and follows restrictions that have already been approved by the Supreme Court....yet the bill is decried as "censorship".

It seems like everything is censorship. You don't think junior high kids should read books with graphic rape scenes?  You are advocting "censorship" and librarians will claim that the book has been "banned". 

You don't want to renew the below-market lease for the Senate Press room?  You are trying to thwart free speech. 

You support special Senate floor privileges for reporters, but ask them to stay on the periphery like everyone else and you are shutting down free speech. 

Reporters forget that we used to have actual censorship in this country.  President Wilson put thousands of people in prison for things they said during WWI.  Those days are gone but unfortunately they are also forgotten.

Words matter and when people make up meanings for words like "banned" and "censor" then when real censorship comes along, no one will pay attention. 

Ed Pastor in the Washington Post

The Washington Post has identified 16 Congressmen who used earmarks to benefit their family members.  Here's what the post discovered about Ed Pastor. 

Rep. Ed Pastor, D-Ariz., is a member of the powerful House Appropriations Committee, which has jurisdiction over the budget of the National Nuclear Security Administration. The Energy Department agency is tasked with securing the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile and preventing nuclear proliferation.

During the past six years, the congressman has directed the agency to send millions to fund the scholarship program for at-risk high school students headed by his daughter in Arizona. She earns $75,774 a year.

Pastor obtained a $1 million federal grant for the Achieving a College Education program at the Maricopa Community Colleges about four years before his daughter, Laura, was hired as its director in 2005. Since that time, Pastor has earmarked about $4 million from the nuclear agency for the program, records show.

Pastor said he's proud of the earmarks and pointed out that he has sent money to educational programs across his congressional district in Phoenix. Maricopa's ACE program provides financial support to high school students who are in danger of not graduating, enabling them to take classes and summer camps to build math and science skills and attend college. While the money goes to the program, Pastor said his daughter's salary is covered by the college.

"The perception is that you helped your daughter, but if you evaluate the kids who benefited from this, it was worth doing," the congressman said. "I believe thousands of kids have a better life today because of this program."

Pastor said he was searching to find ways to support the ACE scholarship program in 2005, when one of his colleagues on the appropriations committee said the nuclear security administration had grants available to fund programs at historically black colleges.

Given this, Pastor said he felt it was appropriate to earmark money from the nuclear agency to Maricopa because the students in the program are largely Hispanic. At the time, he said, he did not know that his daughter was applying for a job to head the program.

"She was never my motivation," Pastor said. "I wasn't aware she was applying. If I knew, I would have contacted the chancellor and said, 'What kind of position does this put you and me in?' "

Pastor filed three certifications between 2008 and 2010 stating that "neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project." Had he been a senator, Pastor would have been required to further certify that no "immediate" family members had an interest.

Laura Pastor declined to be interviewed. She said in a statement: "I applied for several positions at the Maricopa Community Colleges because I wanted to return to work in education. I was well qualified for my position, having administered a similar type of program in Chicago before returning to Arizona. I was chosen through a competitive process."

Tom Gariepy, a spokesman for Maricopa, said, "She was the best person for the job."

The Arizona Republic reported in 2007 that Laura Pastor was not the highest-ranked candidate for the position but had received a salary at the top of the pay scale. The paper also discovered that an equal-opportunity investigator had warned college officials that "we will not be able to totally defend the hiring decision."

After the hiring story faded, Pastor continued to earmark money for the ACE program, The Post found. Pastor has also secured earmarks for other colleges, including $185,000 to Pima Community College, $1.6 million to Arizona State University and $8.7 million to the University of Arizona. More than a third of his college earmarks — $4.2 million to his daughter's program and another $2 million to a different program — have gone to Maricopa.

A spokesman for the nuclear security administration said in a statement that the use of the earmarked money was appropriate.

"Congress has authority for all earmarks and makes those decisions," Joshua McConaha said in the statement. "This program is not unique within NNSA or within the federal government. . . . Recruiting and retaining the next generation of scientists and engineers is a priority for us because the types of people we need to execute our mission are highly sought after."

The Future of the Newspaper Industry summed up in one Headline.

From the Business Journal.

Former ‘East Valley Tribune’ building to house DES offices