Arizona's Own Espresso Pundit

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.