Government billboards.

Driving back to Tucson from the Phoenix Symphony tonight, I spotted a billboard in Phoenix's arts and entertainment district boasting that the University of Arizona is #1 in Astronomy.

A very true claim, yes, but just how many Astronomy, Astrophysics, or Planetary Science majors does the U of A expect to recruit with such a billboard? The likely "real" purpose of the advertisement falls outside of legitimate University expenditure; it is an attempt to convince affluent Phoenicians to "support" the U, not by making donations--that's done by direct mail to alumni--but rather by requesting that their legislators fund it and otherwise grant its wishes, a perhaps cheaper supplement to its outright lobbying. (The legislature has talked about forbidding the University and other organs of the government to lobby for years but never has had the sense to pass such a bill.)

In their excellent >100 Ideas for 100 Days the Goldwater Institute proposes forbidding all state-funded billboards or advertising that include a politician's name or face. That's a capital idea, but it can be made broader still: forbid the State government, any local government, or any organ of the state or local government to purchase any advertising whatsoever aside from that required by statute.

Two new 'blogs added to blogroll.

I have added two more Arizona policy 'blogs to Goldwater State's blogroll:

1. The Arizona Desert Lamp. Former Daily Wildcat columnist Evan Lisull's solo 'blog, this covers Arizona happenings and policy, with especial attention given to the University of Arizona.
   
2. Brown and Little PLC. This is apparently a group 'blog, maintained by a Phoenix criminal defense law firm, although the names of post authors are not given. The perspective (like mine) appears to be broadly classical-liberal, and topics covered include the quirks of Arizona law and reports from the "field". This report about ethics violations in an unnamed prosecutor's office (which I suspect to be LaWall's) is but one of many posts that make the 'blog's archive worthwhile reading.

Proposition 101 is too close to call.

It's twenty minutes past midnight, and I find myself cursing AHCCCS chief and shameless fabricator Anthony Rodgers, gullible writers like those at the Daily Star who weren't critical enough of his creative "interpretation" of Prop 101 or the outrageous $2 billion price tag he put on it, and of course the court that let him slide.

Proposition 101, the Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, is too close to call at the moment. With 92% of precincts reporting, the difference is a little over a thousand votes. Prospects don't look good, however; most of the missing precincts are in Pima County.

It's a nail-biter, yes, but I need sleep. More to follow. Semi-official, sporadically updated results may be found on the Secretary of State's website.

Something tells me I'd get along swimmingly with the East Valley Tribune editorial board.

Now that is an uncanny amount of overlap. Unlike Indie Rock Pete I'm happy to see that someone sees it my way, although it is a strange feeling.

Beyond fear of money-lenders.

A (rather paranoid) commenter on my post concerning Prop 200 thinks that Google ads for payday loans somehow diminish my credibility on the topic of Proposition 200. It's worth noting that Google places ads based on the presence of keywords, moreover, that it's a rather serious--libelous--accusation, that someone is somehow being paid to voice an opinion he wouldn't otherwise have.

The accusation of shilling for this business or that, so commonly heard from the Left, usually lacks plausibility and is a mark of immaturity. Without any evidence of payola one would have to rule out all legitimate reasons for holding an opinion, and the mind that cannot envision reasons other than payola that someone may support something that also may be in a money-lender's best interest is, at best, underdeveloped. As is the mind that reverts to the almost instinctual aversion to either self-interest--we don't live in a zero-sum world--or money lenders. I have argued that sunsetting the "payday loan" business would be bad for both the business owners and the business customers. That means passing Prop 200 is win-win. The mind suspicious of self-interest is one that doesn't understand the term "win-win". "Win-win" transactions between lender and borrower look a lot like "win-lose" transactions in hunter-gatherer society; override the caveman, please!

But back to those ads. Note that many of them are for offshore operations. If Proposition 200 fails and the legislature sunsets the "payday lenders'" enabling law, Arizonans will turn to these services, which are effectively beyond the reach of regulation and rather difficult for a person of modest means to sue.

Miscellaneous Endorsements: Maricopa County and Central Arizona

Four more endorsements, then sleep, work, and the polls, all the while anxious about the eventual disposition of Proposition 101:

• Elect Dan Saban Maricopa County Sheriff.
  
  Joe Arpaio's PR men promote him as "America's Toughest Sheriff". What does having America's Toughest Sheriff get the people of Maricopa County? Publicity stunts, money wasted pursuing immigration paperwork offenders instead of criminals, civil liberties violations, extradition refusals, and quite a few sure-loser lawsuits. If they end up spending a night in his "Tent City" jail, it may even cost them their lives. The Wikipedia article on the man is a good place to start for those unfamiliar with his record, or just search for his name on Google.
  
  The County's authoritarian-leaning electorate has been predisposed to view Arpaio's detractors as "whiners", "supporters of criminals", and other such nonsense. Reflect for a moment on why our Constitution has e.g. the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and if that doesn't convince you he has to go, consider how much those lawsuits are costing the taxpayer. If you're still not convinced he has to go, let me remind you that he has been using his office to harass and intimidate< critical journalists, leading to a standoff with Phoenix police when his deputies threatened to arrest a New Times reporter for the offense of searching public records, and also to a lawsuit over the retaliatory arrest and false imprisonment of New Times executives. If you don't think that behavior crosses the line, you likely think that the First Amendment is for whiners and that mere mortals ought never question any behavior by any "authority figure". But if you believed that, you wouldn't be reading my endorsements.
  
  Dan Saban is running to restore the respectability of the Sheriff's office and department, to end the stream of lawsuits, the posturing, the gimmicks, and the publicity stunts--none of which have made Maricopa county a safer place to live--replacing them with modern practices that work. Joining with the Arizona Republic and most of the area's policemen's organizations--again, strange company!--I encourage you to give him your vote.
  
  
• Elect Judah Nativio to the AZ Senate, district 18
  
  Russell Pearce, more than anyone else, "poisoned the waters" at the Capital, whipping up xenophobia, even declaring illegal immigrants to "have no rights", as if to incite the people to a Rwandan solution.
  
  Term-limited out of the State House of Representatives, he's running for the State Senate. Judah Nativio, a cardboard-cutout Democrat, is his opponent. Don't send Pearce back to the Capitol; vote Nativio. Better to elect a mediocre Democrat than the State's major instigator of anti-immigrant hysteria.
  
  
• Vote Joe Cobb in Congressional District 4
  
  I haven't much to say about incumbent Ed Pastor. (This is why I need a co-blogger in Maricopa County.) As far as I've been able to discern, the long-serving Democrat has a voting record that's "middle of the road" given his Party affiliation.
  
  What I do know, however, is that in any given room it's likely that (Libertarian) Joe Cobb can think circles around 99% of the other people present. Unlike most of the Libertarian Party's candidates he demonstrates an understanding of subtlety and that public policy is a balancing act. He demonstrates a genuine intellectual curiosity, an even temper, a courteous modesty, and the humane liberal values that characterize the libertarian movement but are all too absent from the Libertarian Party. More importantly, although he has not served in elected office, his past experience in government makes him well-qualified to serve in Congress, perhaps more so than any other Congressional challenger in the State.
  
  When I recommend voting for a Libertarian or a Green, it's usually as a protest vote. Don't vote for Joe Cobb as a protest vote. Vote for Joe Cobb because he's the best man for the job and, in a just world, would be a shoo-in.
  
  
• Re-elect Jeff Flake in Congressional District 6. If any incumbent Congressman, anywhere in the USA, deserves re-election, it is Jeff Flake. Since leaving the Goldwater Institute for Congress eight years ago, Flake has become the House's premier advocate of fiscal restraint and one of its foremost champions of civil liberties. The "Flake Hour" set off the fight against earmarks. Party leadership made him pay for it, but he's stood firm. Perhaps if they'd have listened to Flake, they wouldn't be set to lose the House to the Democrats, again, despite low overall Congressional approval ratings.
  
  Contrast this with Democratic challenger Rebecca Schneider, who gripes that "people are tired of Jeff Flake not helping them. Need I explain to you, Ms. Schneider, how disingenous it is to call B slipping an earmark at the end of a bill to spend A's taxes for the benefit of C "help"? Or perhaps she really thinks that the job of a Congressman is to drive around the Valley and assist people stuck on the highway in changing their tires, or coax cats down from trees. Schneider's website reads like a third party candidate's thoughtless rant (and full of greengrocers' apostrophes and similar errors, too!), and her statements to the press show her to be similarly out of her league. Give her a few years on a school board or water board to learn to think about policy, perhaps then she'll be worth considering. The only reason she even has a hair of a chance this year is because of general anger at the Republican Party.
  
  That a Libertarian newcomer (with a website creepily reminiscent of the LaRouchies), Rick Biondi, is running against Flake is startling. Flake is easily the most libertarian member of the House. He voted against Sarb-Ox, voted against Medicare Part D, supported comprehensive immigration reform, and while he may have initially supported the PATRIOT Act and the war in Iraq, came to oppose both, and vote accordingly, in little time. Perhaps Biondi's run is an exercise in vanity?; surely there was room for a Libertarian on the State Senate ballot! Libertarians: look up Flake's record--he's not the "lesser of two evils"--and pass on Biondi.