There was a meeting in Elgin last night to discuss the state of debate over whether or not mining corporations will strip still more mountains south of Tucson searching for copper ore.
I have heard estimates of up to $8 billion worth of copper in the area, based on today's prices ... and if prices go up (which, given the demands of the emerging Indian and Chinese economies seems the way to bet) the value of that copper will only go up as well.
That's a lot of money coming into the area, and also a fair number of jobs. A no-brainer, one would think, particularly given the recession right now, huh? Not so fast.
Not surprisingly, a number of farmers and environmentalists are less than thrilled at the notion. There is a bigger problem, however. As x4mr noted in early April the real concern isn't just the ugliness of open pit mining and the waste it produces, but rather water ... or, more particularly, lack thereof. This link provides a short overview on how much water mines used in 1997 ... hint: a lot.
If Tucson were located where Seattle is, say, that wouldn't be such a big deal ... sadly, that's not the case. Tucson is, in fact, located in a desert, a fact the mining companies (and, for that matter, golf resort owners) try to get everyone to overlook.
Since those who graduate with science and engineering jobs and quickly get out of town in search of the actual well-paying jobs ... you know, jobs like those TREO and other organizations repeatedly promise Tucson is on the verge of getting, but which continuously fail to arrive, through no fault of TREO et. al., of course ... fail to offset the influx from retirees and other sources, the metro population figures to to keep on expanding beyond the 1 million mark it hit last fall. All those people need water ... jobs are nice, but water is a necessity.
Giffords and Grijalva have both come out against the mining, and it's my understanding Giffords was at the Elgin meeting to discuss what she was trying to do to prevent it. Since this falls within her district, Grijalva can provide advice and support, but it's really up to her to lead any fight. Given how favorable current law is toward mines (the statutes in question date back to the 19th century), it's an uphill struggle. How it turns out will effect everyone in Southern Arizona, one way or another.
Showing posts with label Giffords. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Giffords. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
Ignorant opinions
As a blogger and blog commentator, if there is any subject I know well it's publicly proclaiming one's opinion on some matter about which one knows little or nothing. I'm an expert.
ThinkRight provided a post yesterday in which he helpfully provided link to letters the Arizona Daily Star received vis-a-vis their simultaneously published articles on Gabrielle Giffords (discussing her 1st year in Congress) and Tim Bee (announcing plans to run against Giffords this fall), as well as a response by the Star's Debbie Kornmiller.
Not surprisingly, a number of the letters submitted took the respective length of the two articles (the Giffords article was considerably lengthier) as signs of clear bias on the Star's part. I take the letters as clear evidence the writers have no clue what they are talking about.
Full disclosure: Way, way back in the dawn of time I worked as a reporter for the Star, and knew both Bobbie Jo Buel (slightly) and Debbie Kornmiller (somewhat better). I haven't seen or spoken with either in at least a decade, mind you.
What I do know is Kornmiller's explanation rings true. There is no way, given the amount of time invested in the two different subjects those articles were ever going to be the same length. If the Star was going to run them the same day (which the Giffords article had apparently been scheduled to do for some time before Bee scheduled his announcement), then they made they best choice they could by featuring them with equal prominence on the front page.
One might argue they could have moved the Giffords piece a week earlier or later ... but, frankly, shifting something which had months of work invested in it just to accommodate Bee's story would have given more weight to Bee's announcement than it deserved.
The Star may have its biases, but the length of the articles in question is a thin reed on which to make the case.
ThinkRight provided a post yesterday in which he helpfully provided link to letters the Arizona Daily Star received vis-a-vis their simultaneously published articles on Gabrielle Giffords (discussing her 1st year in Congress) and Tim Bee (announcing plans to run against Giffords this fall), as well as a response by the Star's Debbie Kornmiller.
Not surprisingly, a number of the letters submitted took the respective length of the two articles (the Giffords article was considerably lengthier) as signs of clear bias on the Star's part. I take the letters as clear evidence the writers have no clue what they are talking about.
Full disclosure: Way, way back in the dawn of time I worked as a reporter for the Star, and knew both Bobbie Jo Buel (slightly) and Debbie Kornmiller (somewhat better). I haven't seen or spoken with either in at least a decade, mind you.
What I do know is Kornmiller's explanation rings true. There is no way, given the amount of time invested in the two different subjects those articles were ever going to be the same length. If the Star was going to run them the same day (which the Giffords article had apparently been scheduled to do for some time before Bee scheduled his announcement), then they made they best choice they could by featuring them with equal prominence on the front page.
One might argue they could have moved the Giffords piece a week earlier or later ... but, frankly, shifting something which had months of work invested in it just to accommodate Bee's story would have given more weight to Bee's announcement than it deserved.
The Star may have its biases, but the length of the articles in question is a thin reed on which to make the case.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Extremist != Disagreement
Fellow blogger ThinkRight has a post up proclaiming Giffords isn't a moderate, but rather an extreme left-wing wactivist who wants to take away all our guns, open our borders to anyone who wants to visit, raise the taxes to 110% of income and destroy all industry so we can revert back to living in harmony with nature.
Well, he doesn't go quite that far. In making his case, however, he cites the fact she supported the resolution by Dennis Kucinich to impeach Dick Cheney last week as an example of an "extremist" position.
Polling results from just this month indicate 43% of voters feel Cheney should be impeached. A further 9% feel he has committed impeachable offenses, but should not be impeached. Let's see ... 43+9 = 52. Hey, what do you know - a majority of voters in this country think Cheney has committed impeachable offenses. For the record, that's far more than ever felt that way about Clinton, which didn't stop Republicans from, you know, actually impeaching him.
In all fairness, TR was against impeaching Clinton, so he's consistent at least.
However, this does bring up the matter of what qualifies as "extremist". I mean, when your position is actually in line with the majority view it certainly can't be labeled as "extreme", but must, at least, be labeled as "mainstream". I don't see how this can even be quibbled with, debated, or even "agree to disagree" - when your view is the majority view, labeling it "extreme" is simply ... well ... wrong.
Still, is there some metric to be applied? Without any real thought at all, it seems to me that I tend to (unconsciously) use the following metrics:
If there is a matter where one position garners more than 50% support, then any view which has less than 25% support is "extreme". Any view with less than 10% support is "fringe".
That seems pretty crude, though, and I am sure if I thought about it long enough I could come up with counter-examples from my past which disprove it. It does seem like an accurate rough guide to my thought process, though.
In the end, I may disagree with TR's views regarding Cheney impeachment, but his opinion is, by no means, extremist. After all, 48% of voters don't think Cheney should be impeached.
Well, he doesn't go quite that far. In making his case, however, he cites the fact she supported the resolution by Dennis Kucinich to impeach Dick Cheney last week as an example of an "extremist" position.
Polling results from just this month indicate 43% of voters feel Cheney should be impeached. A further 9% feel he has committed impeachable offenses, but should not be impeached. Let's see ... 43+9 = 52. Hey, what do you know - a majority of voters in this country think Cheney has committed impeachable offenses. For the record, that's far more than ever felt that way about Clinton, which didn't stop Republicans from, you know, actually impeaching him.
In all fairness, TR was against impeaching Clinton, so he's consistent at least.
However, this does bring up the matter of what qualifies as "extremist". I mean, when your position is actually in line with the majority view it certainly can't be labeled as "extreme", but must, at least, be labeled as "mainstream". I don't see how this can even be quibbled with, debated, or even "agree to disagree" - when your view is the majority view, labeling it "extreme" is simply ... well ... wrong.
Still, is there some metric to be applied? Without any real thought at all, it seems to me that I tend to (unconsciously) use the following metrics:
If there is a matter where one position garners more than 50% support, then any view which has less than 25% support is "extreme". Any view with less than 10% support is "fringe".
That seems pretty crude, though, and I am sure if I thought about it long enough I could come up with counter-examples from my past which disprove it. It does seem like an accurate rough guide to my thought process, though.
In the end, I may disagree with TR's views regarding Cheney impeachment, but his opinion is, by no means, extremist. After all, 48% of voters don't think Cheney should be impeached.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Money matters
For some reason there has been a lot of griping about Tim Bee not resigning his position to run in CD 8 ... griping I don't understand. If Bee feels he can run a credible, substantive race while also retaining his influential seat in the Arizona Senate, more power to him -- as blogger ThinkRight regularly notes, it may be a long, long time before a Baja Arizonan leads the Senate again.
As long as Bee files financial reports, I don't see how his remaining in the Senate can hurt anyone else in the race, most notably Democratic incumbent Gabrielle Giffords. If anything, the extra demands on Bee's time can only help her.
Well, the reports are out. The Star has an article this morning discussing AZ 8 fund-raising figures for both Giffords and Bee, and x4mr already has a post up about the matter. The early scoreboard shows Giffords raising $250K last quarter, with $1.1 million tucker away, while Bee raised $135K, with $120K on hand.
A pair of posters have already (as I write this) thrown in their $.02, with ThinkRight opining Bee's early fund-raising figures are quit good for an exploratory campaign, while Roger feels the figure is disappointing for the Bee camp.
Count me firmly on Roger's side of the debate.
Calling Bee's campaign "exploratory" is sophistry at its finest. Everyone knows Bee will run, and any claims from his staff to the contrary are purely to allow Bee to retain his position as head of the state Senate for as long as possible. Being "exploratory" didn't hurt or help his fundraising in any way, shape, form or fashion.
Bee did suffer from some handicaps, in that his campaign was just getting underway as the quarter began. However, if memory serves the comittee was formed in June, meaning Bee had the entire quarter to raise money.
Furthermore, the first quarter of fundraising is the "easy" quarter. This is the money you get from all your friends, contacts, business associates, etc., the money you use to build the foundation of your campaign organization. From this point on, raising money only gets harder. For a comparison, in her first quarter of fundraising, a period in which she only had five weeks (having declared in late Nov. 2005), Giffords raised over $250K.
Another comparison - the $250K Giffords raised last month was, by far, her worst quarter of the year. You can expect to see that figure kick up again as 2008 turns the quarter. At this time last campaign Giffords was six weeks from even declaring ... she went on to raise $2.5 million for the race.
Bee and his campaign will never admit it ... but if I were a betting man I would lay a lot of money that yes, they are very disappointed with their initial fundraising efforts. If they hope to unseat Giffords, they are going to have to do better.
Correction: ThinkRight, in comments, notes the Bee exploratory committee did not officially kick off until late Aug. As such, fundraising efforts only cover the last five weeks of the quarter.
It doesn't change my opinion the amount raised remains disappointing, both for reasons noted above and in the comment thread, but it does attenuate it good bit.
As long as Bee files financial reports, I don't see how his remaining in the Senate can hurt anyone else in the race, most notably Democratic incumbent Gabrielle Giffords. If anything, the extra demands on Bee's time can only help her.
Well, the reports are out. The Star has an article this morning discussing AZ 8 fund-raising figures for both Giffords and Bee, and x4mr already has a post up about the matter. The early scoreboard shows Giffords raising $250K last quarter, with $1.1 million tucker away, while Bee raised $135K, with $120K on hand.
A pair of posters have already (as I write this) thrown in their $.02, with ThinkRight opining Bee's early fund-raising figures are quit good for an exploratory campaign, while Roger feels the figure is disappointing for the Bee camp.
Count me firmly on Roger's side of the debate.
Calling Bee's campaign "exploratory" is sophistry at its finest. Everyone knows Bee will run, and any claims from his staff to the contrary are purely to allow Bee to retain his position as head of the state Senate for as long as possible. Being "exploratory" didn't hurt or help his fundraising in any way, shape, form or fashion.
Bee did suffer from some handicaps, in that his campaign was just getting underway as the quarter began. However, if memory serves the comittee was formed in June, meaning Bee had the entire quarter to raise money.
Furthermore, the first quarter of fundraising is the "easy" quarter. This is the money you get from all your friends, contacts, business associates, etc., the money you use to build the foundation of your campaign organization. From this point on, raising money only gets harder. For a comparison, in her first quarter of fundraising, a period in which she only had five weeks (having declared in late Nov. 2005), Giffords raised over $250K.
Another comparison - the $250K Giffords raised last month was, by far, her worst quarter of the year. You can expect to see that figure kick up again as 2008 turns the quarter. At this time last campaign Giffords was six weeks from even declaring ... she went on to raise $2.5 million for the race.
Bee and his campaign will never admit it ... but if I were a betting man I would lay a lot of money that yes, they are very disappointed with their initial fundraising efforts. If they hope to unseat Giffords, they are going to have to do better.
Correction: ThinkRight, in comments, notes the Bee exploratory committee did not officially kick off until late Aug. As such, fundraising efforts only cover the last five weeks of the quarter.
It doesn't change my opinion the amount raised remains disappointing, both for reasons noted above and in the comment thread, but it does attenuate it good bit.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Starting the Rumpus
One of my favorite quotes to throw out for various occasions is "Let the wild rumpus begin!", which is lifted from one of my favorite (and a favorite for many others as well) books a a child, Maurice Sendak's "Where the Wild Things Are".
Sadly, in researching this post, I learned I have apparently been misusing the line all these years, and it should actually be "Let the wild rumpus start!". Sigh. Oh well, c'est la vie. I prefer my version, I think it rolls better off the tongue. Sendak needs to release a new version with my proposed improvement.
Tedski over at Rum, Romanism and Rebellion has a post up today discussing "buzz" about Tim Bee opting to run for county supervisor instead of challenging incumbent Gabrielle Giffords for the her Congressional seat after he gets term-limited out of the Arizona Senate when this session ends. I don't think anyone, including whoever is feeding those rumors to Tedski, believes that -- Bee is the best nominee Republicans can hope to get for that race, and if they don't get Giffords out in 2008 she may be ensconced until she chooses to leave on her own terms.
It didn't take long in the comments section for the ranks of "GiffOnators" (to borrow x4mr's term; the "villains" in question were ThinkRight, The Guard and TonyGOPrano) to start in with calling Giffords a "light-weight", a "Pelosi clone" and other such claims.
In defense of his claims, Guard at least pointed out this Daily Star story in which Republicans complained Giffords voted with Pelosi "96% of the time". I happily pointed out Republicans making such claims might be a little biased, and further noted more recent data which showed Giffords among those Democrats most willing to vote against the party line.
None of which is terribly significant ... it's just, for whatever reason, this was the first give-and-take exchange in some time that reminded me of all the hoopla and sparring over the CD 8 race in the run up to the elections last year. It felt symbolic somehow, like throwing out the first pitch before a baseball game. Ahhh ... the memories ... the days of 30+ comment threads ... it nearly brings a tear to my eye.
The last race didn't really get underway in the blogosphere until Jan. 2007. While I don't expect to see regular posting and threads on the matter for a couple months yet, things will still get heated up for next year's race months earlier than Jan. 2009. At least for me it feels like the warm-ups are already starting.
Let the Wild Rumpus Begin! Er ... Start! Er ... Begin!
Update: As of now, the associated comment thread on R-Cubed has 19 comments attached to it -- 30, here we come!
Sadly, in researching this post, I learned I have apparently been misusing the line all these years, and it should actually be "Let the wild rumpus start!". Sigh. Oh well, c'est la vie. I prefer my version, I think it rolls better off the tongue. Sendak needs to release a new version with my proposed improvement.
Tedski over at Rum, Romanism and Rebellion has a post up today discussing "buzz" about Tim Bee opting to run for county supervisor instead of challenging incumbent Gabrielle Giffords for the her Congressional seat after he gets term-limited out of the Arizona Senate when this session ends. I don't think anyone, including whoever is feeding those rumors to Tedski, believes that -- Bee is the best nominee Republicans can hope to get for that race, and if they don't get Giffords out in 2008 she may be ensconced until she chooses to leave on her own terms.
It didn't take long in the comments section for the ranks of "GiffOnators" (to borrow x4mr's term; the "villains" in question were ThinkRight, The Guard and TonyGOPrano) to start in with calling Giffords a "light-weight", a "Pelosi clone" and other such claims.
In defense of his claims, Guard at least pointed out this Daily Star story in which Republicans complained Giffords voted with Pelosi "96% of the time". I happily pointed out Republicans making such claims might be a little biased, and further noted more recent data which showed Giffords among those Democrats most willing to vote against the party line.
None of which is terribly significant ... it's just, for whatever reason, this was the first give-and-take exchange in some time that reminded me of all the hoopla and sparring over the CD 8 race in the run up to the elections last year. It felt symbolic somehow, like throwing out the first pitch before a baseball game. Ahhh ... the memories ... the days of 30+ comment threads ... it nearly brings a tear to my eye.
The last race didn't really get underway in the blogosphere until Jan. 2007. While I don't expect to see regular posting and threads on the matter for a couple months yet, things will still get heated up for next year's race months earlier than Jan. 2009. At least for me it feels like the warm-ups are already starting.
Let the Wild Rumpus Begin! Er ... Start! Er ... Begin!
Update: As of now, the associated comment thread on R-Cubed has 19 comments attached to it -- 30, here we come!
Monday, July 16, 2007
It's Tim(e) to Bee deciding
In that little, insular corner of the blogosphere interested in such things, there has been a great deal of speculation the last few months as to whether Republican Tim Bee, member of the Arizona State Senate from District 30 and that and body's current President, was likely to run against incumbent Democrat Gabrielle Giffords next year for the US Congressional seat from Arizona District 8.
If so, these numbers can't be something he's smiling about this morning.
Giffords managed to raise over $580,000 this last quarter, and has over $900,000 on hand already. Those are big numbers. Scary numbers.
To put it in perspective, I am fairly certain the money Giffords raised just this past quarter exceeds that raised by her opponent in the last election, Randy Graf, for his entire primary campaign. Bee, should he run, would be expected to raise considerably more money than Graf, but starting almost $1 million in arrears in the fund raising race is a daunting mountain to climb.
What's especially noteworthy about the numbers from last quarter is how far out from the election we are. Giffords' fund raising efforts haven't really kicked it into high gear yet - on suspects those quarterly tallies can still get significantly higher once the first of the year passes.
It's looking more-and-more like people have been caught flat-footed by just how early campaigning has begun, not just in Presidential campaigns but in Senatorial and Congressional ones as well. Campaigning for the AZ 8 seat in last year's election didn't get seriously underway until Dec. 2006 or Jan. 2007. Anyone who thought they could wait that late this year before getting things underway has now had a rude shock.
As an additional factor, for all her prowess raising money last year, Giffords spent a large chunk of it in a competitive primary race. That's very unlikely to be the case next year, meaning all that money being gathered in her war chest can be saved for the general.
Should Bee opt to run he likely has the stature to keep out any other high-profile Republicans. He needs to hope so anyway, as a primary brawl including some mix of Graf, Mike Hellon and Steve Huffman would only seriously hurt conservative hopes to retake the seat.
Recent studies seem to indicate that while money raised is certainly correlated with who wins a political race, it doesn't determine who will win. (Freakonomics has an entire chapter on the subject). The brief argument is people like to back winners, and tend to donate money to those they think will win. In other words, good candidates tend to get more money.
If so, there are apparently a lot of people already out there who think Giffords can (and will) win re-election in 2008. If Tim Bee (or, for that matter, anyone else) wants to take a good shot at here, they can't wait any longer ... a decision needs to be made now.
If so, these numbers can't be something he's smiling about this morning.
Giffords managed to raise over $580,000 this last quarter, and has over $900,000 on hand already. Those are big numbers. Scary numbers.
To put it in perspective, I am fairly certain the money Giffords raised just this past quarter exceeds that raised by her opponent in the last election, Randy Graf, for his entire primary campaign. Bee, should he run, would be expected to raise considerably more money than Graf, but starting almost $1 million in arrears in the fund raising race is a daunting mountain to climb.
What's especially noteworthy about the numbers from last quarter is how far out from the election we are. Giffords' fund raising efforts haven't really kicked it into high gear yet - on suspects those quarterly tallies can still get significantly higher once the first of the year passes.
It's looking more-and-more like people have been caught flat-footed by just how early campaigning has begun, not just in Presidential campaigns but in Senatorial and Congressional ones as well. Campaigning for the AZ 8 seat in last year's election didn't get seriously underway until Dec. 2006 or Jan. 2007. Anyone who thought they could wait that late this year before getting things underway has now had a rude shock.
As an additional factor, for all her prowess raising money last year, Giffords spent a large chunk of it in a competitive primary race. That's very unlikely to be the case next year, meaning all that money being gathered in her war chest can be saved for the general.
Should Bee opt to run he likely has the stature to keep out any other high-profile Republicans. He needs to hope so anyway, as a primary brawl including some mix of Graf, Mike Hellon and Steve Huffman would only seriously hurt conservative hopes to retake the seat.
Recent studies seem to indicate that while money raised is certainly correlated with who wins a political race, it doesn't determine who will win. (Freakonomics has an entire chapter on the subject). The brief argument is people like to back winners, and tend to donate money to those they think will win. In other words, good candidates tend to get more money.
If so, there are apparently a lot of people already out there who think Giffords can (and will) win re-election in 2008. If Tim Bee (or, for that matter, anyone else) wants to take a good shot at here, they can't wait any longer ... a decision needs to be made now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)