The Foundation of Arizona's Economy: Military Bases, Real Estate Development, and Professional Sports

Today's Washington Post discusses Maricopa County's $700 million investment in new (and single-tenant) professional sports venues here. I think this is nuts, but apparently that's just me and a handful of other disgruntled citizens.

Deadline for Marriage

Single? Better get it in gear before the Musgrave amendment passes. Note the second sentence:

"Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

So as Atrios notes, if you're not married before the thing passes, you're marital toast. Read my lips: No new marriages.

Why Virginia Postrel Is an Old-Fashioned Baseball Guy

It's because she's letting her "gut" inform her view of the world, unburdened by any statistics. As Michael Bérubé noted qualitatively, and both Brad DeLong and Max Sawicky ("She has no data to support the case she is pretending not to be making") noted quantitatively, Postrel last Sunday mused in the New York Times that maybe the jobs picture is "prettier" than the official statistics--but we don't have any data to support that assertion, and the oft-noted discrepancy between the two major employment data sources has remained essentially constant over the past three years, so it's not like one statistic says we're creating more jobs than the other.

In relying on her "dynamic" gut, Postrel is like sports reporters and old-time baseball guys who know (or who have been told by older baseball guys) what it takes to win baseball games and who can't be bothered by analyzing statistics or using the scientific method to test (or toss out) their theories. The baseball guys value abstract qualities only they can judge, and dismiss the value of statistics--and in one recent case noted by Matt Welch, ignore Kirk Gibson's incredible lifetime statistics to focus on his "leadership qualities" instead.

If you're making an argument about statistics, some rigor and data would be nice. And if you're not, then you're just Joe Morgan reciting old-time baseball "wisdom" that doesn't stand up to analysis.

Fighting for Freedom over Religious Intolerance -- Not!

President Bush's endorsement of a gay marriage amendment yesterday means that he's certainly not the guy to lead us in fighting to defend our freedoms, and the Constitution, against religious extremists.

As reported by Dana Milbank in today's Washington Post:

"[A] Senate Republican with ties to the religious conservative movement said 'the last place Bush wanted to be' at this time in the electoral cycle was wooing his base of support. 'He should be coasting on being the war president and deliverer of tax cuts; instead, he has to take a divisive role on a contentious social issue that could undercut him as a compassionate conservative,' this official said.

Serves him right.

Special Gay Marriage Amendment Post

First, Joshua Micah Marshall:

"[Bush's] support among conservatives has taken some real hits. The White House has decided that the long-predicted rising economy won't float them through this election. The situation in Iraq looks wobbly and likely to get worse before it gets better. So deprived of the ability to run on his record he's decided to save his political hide by trying to tear the country apart over a charged and divisive social issue which is being hashed out through the political process in the states.

It's his dad and the flag burning amendment all over again. Is there really anything that tells you more about a man's character than this?"

And pretty much the last word from the Onion here.

Does Fundamentalist Zealotry Sound Better In English Than In Arabic?

It's more local Arizona stuff this week, with our legislature out to prove that there are really no institutional checks in politics anymore. As another example from that in the column, there are a slew of bills in the House that would make the judiciary subject to legislative oversight, so that the conservatives could overturn court decisions they didn't find politically acceptable. But if we translated any of these bills into Arabic and somebody in Iraq proposed them, we'd be outraged. Here in Arizona, it's just how we do things.

Hey, Republicans, here's a thought experiment. Let's say Kerry (or Edwards) is elected this fall. After the performance of the Bush administration--on the start date of the recession, on the job projection numbers, on the (5-year vs. 10-year) budget projections, on WMD and the reasons for going to war in Iraq, on science issues--why should a future Democratic administration ever have to tell the truth about anything? (Except sex--we'll give you that one.)


DEMOCRACY FOR IRAQ? HOW ABOUT ARIZONA?
East Valley Tribune, Feb. 22, 2004

Forget about bringing democracy to Iraq -- can we get some democracy in the Arizona House of Representatives, and some ethics in the Arizona Senate?

House Speaker Jake Flake makes no pretense of being the elected leader of the entire House. Instead, he's eliminating all dissenting views and excluding all Democrats from the budget process. Maybe locking out all Democrats and Republicans who don't toe the speaker's line makes sense to people who believe exactly as he does. But last time I checked, the Arizona Constitution doesn't provide that the House reflect only the opinions of one East Valley carpool.

The speaker decided to conduct budget deliberations entirely behind closed doors, among Republicans only. There are no open committee meetings for the minority to ask questions and propose amendments. The Appropriations Committee has eliminated its subcommittees; after all, on a subcommittee, people might develop independent expertise -- and there might be (shudder!) Democrats present. Can't have that.

The speaker justifies making the House a GOP club because House Democrats will support the governor's budget proposal, and the speaker sees no reason to negotiate with one more Democrat than absolutely necessary. Apparently, it's bad enough for him that some Democrats get elected, but that's no reason for the speaker to respect and treat them fairly.

There's no little irony in the speaker disrespecting members of the minority who support their party's leader, because when two members of his GOP caucus -- Rep. Pete Hershberger of Tucson and Rep. Tom O'Halleran of Sedona -- didn't follow their party leadership's orders in the CPS reform special session, the speaker stripped them of their chairmanships and threw them off those committees. So the speaker's justification has nothing to do with independence; he just can't abide elected legislators who are the slightest bit independent from him.

Jake Flake's job title is Speaker of the House, not "king" -- but he doesn't see it that way. He's a presumably charming guy, with lots of home-spun stories about roping cattle and riding horses, but he doesn't act as if he actually believes in democracy.

Leadership should mean getting people to follow you, not preventing anyone who disagrees from having a say. And the silence is deafening from people who would rant for days about obscure rules and procedures in the U.S. House of Representatives when the Democrats had the majority, who think it's just peachy that Speaker Flake runs things this undemocratically.

East Valley GOP legislators are totally outraged that homeowner associations might treat their members as poorly as they treat their duly-elected colleagues of a different political party. Spin doctors, heal thyself.

The silence is similarly deafening when Senate President Ken Bennett sponsored a bill that would benefit his family's oil distribution business by making the taxpayers pay some environmental costs that otherwise his business must pay. President Bennett says it's perfectly ethical, because his bill would benefit other oil distribution businesses besides his family's. Well, that certainly clears it up -- there's no conflict in President Bennett's mind so long as the bill doesn't benefit only the Bennett family.

People found it unseemly when Jeff Groscost's friends and neighbors took advantage of his alt-fuels subsidy scheme, but that was wide-open to everybody in Arizona compared to Sen. Bennett deciding to help a certain handful of businesses that just coincidentally happens to include his own.

So that's today's Arizona Legislature, where the speaker doesn't believe in democracy and the Senate President wouldn't know a conflict of interest if it was sitting right there in his wallet.

Democracy? Ethics? Let's just hope nobody tells the Iraqis about how we do things in Arizona.