Sending Dick Cheney to encourage peace between Israelis and Palestinians is akin to sending the Marx Brothers to encourage decorum at a whoopee cushion factory.

In other words, it’s a joke. A very sad joke.

The U.S. vice president met in Israel and in the West Bank with leaders of those respective political entities recently to discuss the Bush administration’s belated and feckless quest for peace.

How officials on either side could take the warmongering Cheney seriously is a key question. The answer is that they didn’t. He departed with no sign of progress.

Next time, send someone with at least a shred of credibility in regard to what it means to make peace.

Bush needs to punish China’s ruthlessness in Tibet

The Dalai Lama terms the Chinese crackdown on Tibet "cultural genocide"

Long-lasting legacy for President Bush can come in how he responds to China’s ruthlessness in Tibet.

Bush has a clear opportunity to tell China that its actions are unacceptable to the United States and the world.

Calling a boycott of the 2008 summer Olympic Games in Beijing would be a bold, definitive action for the president.

“Cultural genocide” is what Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama has been quoted as calling China’s actions against his Himalayan homeland.

Bush must demonstrate that cultural genocide is unacceptable to him and the people of the United States, which purports to set the standard for freedom.

To paraphrase the president’s stance in his war on terrorism: You are either for freedom or you are against it.

A spokeswoman for Bush was quoted by several news agencies this week as saying he plans to attend the Olympics in Beijing, because it is a sports event rather than a political event.

He will use the opportunity to “speak very frankly” to Chinese President Hu Jintao, spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

Not good enough, Mr. President, because it sanctions what China is doing.

You need instead to do what then-President Jimmy Carter did 28 years ago Friday: order a boycott of the summer Olympic Games.

Carter pulled the United States out of the 1980 Olympics in Moscow to protest the Soviet Union’s invasion several months earlier of Afghanistan.

Bush can do the same with the 2008 summer games in Beijing, telling China that its conversion to a capitalistic economy must be paired with changes in its dictatorial central government.

China’s intention in hosting the Olympics is to show off its economic progress. It is working hard to hide many of the negatives of that progress and to repress political dissent.

The latter won’t occur without the world taking note, as it has in the ongoing reports from Lhasa, Tibet, and of protests breaking out elsewhere.

Chinese troops are cracking down on Buddhist monks and other protesters in Tibet, which China took by force in 1959.

From Dharamsala, India, where the Dalai Lama maintains a government in exile, he has consistently called for peace with China. For that stance, he was awarded in October the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest civilian award in the United States.

Bush attended the ceremony, praising the Dalai Lama’s stance for freedom.

Now Bush must back those words with action by warning he will pull the U.S. Olympic team out of the games unless China allows Tibetan autonomy and religious freedom.

Warning of an Olympic boycott is an ideal way for Bush to show what he is made of.

It is a sacrifice worth making, less for Bush’s legacy than for a show of support for all people who dream of freedom.

E-mail the White House, comments@whitehouse.gov, or call the White House comment line, 202-456-1111, telling Bush to boycott Beijing’s Olympics.

Reach Michael A. Chihak at 573-4646 or mchihak@tucsoncitizen.com

Lhasang Tsering

———

TIBETAN’S POETIC CRY FOR JUSTICE

Tibetan-born poet and freedom fighter Lhasang Tsering is among the most vocal in calling for an end to Chinese repression in his homeland.

Tsering lives in exile in Dharamsala, India, where we met him and were introduced to his poetry in October. Here is a sample of his verse, written before Beijing won the 2008 Olympic Games, from his book “Tomorrow & Other Poems.”

- Michael A. Chihak

Olympics 2008

When Members of the IOC meet,

In faraway Moscow to decide,

Who will host Olympics 2008,

What will be uppermost in their minds?

What will be deep down in their hearts?

Will they come with their minds made up?

Will they have been told for whom to vote?

Will it be China for the sake of big business?

Will it be Beijing despite another genocide?

Will they merely rubber-stamp a back-room decision?

Or will they be free to vote as they will?

Will conscience guide them when they vote?

Will the Olympic Spirit be in their hearts?

Will they have Berlin ’36 in their minds?

Will they vote for Beijing if Tibet were their country?

Nearly three-fourths of Americans think the federal government operates secretively rather than openly.

That’s from a Sunshine Week survey by Scripps Howard News Service and Ohio University, done Feb. 10-28 among 1,012 adult U.S. residents.

Sunshine Week, which is this week, is organized by various news media outlets as a way to call attention to needed openness in government.

Among key survey findings:

• At 74 percent, the number of adults who think the federal government is “somewhat” or “very secretive” is up from 62 percent who thought so in 2006.

• 40 percent thought their local governments and 44 percent thought their state governments were “somewhat” or “very secretive.”

• 77 percent thought it was “somewhat” or “very likely” that the federal government opened mail or monitored telephone calls without first getting a federal judge’s permission, as required by law.

• 26 percent said they thought their own mail was opened or telephone conversations monitored by the federal government; 64 percent said they thought that had occurred with mail and telephone conversations involving members of the news media.

The federal Freedom of Information Act is the trend-setting law. It was recently updated, and new legislation has been introduced to keep it working as intended - for the people.

“Press releases tell us when federal agencies do something right, but the Freedom of Information Act lets us know when they do not.” Patrick Leahy, U.S. senator, 1996

Hundreds of thousands of tax dollars have been wasted lately by public officials stubbornly thinking it’s their government, not yours.

The money has gone to pay lawyers, judges, bureaucrats and elected officials wrangling over release of information.

It’s appropriate to make note of such dissemblings on the eve of Sunshine Week, which begins Sunday in celebration of opening government by casting light on its workings.

In many instances, those workings are reflected in the paperwork maintained by government officials and agencies.

Your access is assured under federal, state and local laws, all designed to assume openness rather than secrecy.

The federal Freedom of Information Act is the trend-setting law. It was recently updated, and new legislation has been introduced to keep it working as intended – for the people.

It’s needed because elected officials and other public servants often assume they can operate in secret. It costs a lot of money to get them to act – if not believe – otherwise.

Newspapers often take the lead in seeking to let the sun shine in on government activities that officials would just as soon keep in the dark.

Here are recent examples:

• The Tucson Citizen spent nearly $30,000 on legal fees in the last eight months seeking records from the Pima County Attorney’s Office and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Add in tens of thousands that the county attorney and Arpaio spent fighting over this in court. There probably also are thousands more in court costs.

It likely exceeds $100,000, most of it taxpayer money, over a stack of paperwork that revealed nothing more, and nothing less, than the farouche nature of a politician, Arpaio, and his equally ornery lawyer, Dennis I. Wilenchik.

The County Attorney’s Office wanted to release the paperwork it was holding in the case. Arpaio and his lawyer were not OK with it, and there’s the rub.

A judge ordered that the records be released and that Arpaio must reimburse the Citizen $25,241 in legal fees. Arpaio filed notice of appeal this week, meaning taxpayers will shell out even more for this farce.

• The Citizen, The Arizona Republic and the Arizona Daily Star have spent thousands in the last several months to pry open state Child Protective Services records in several child-abuse deaths in Tucson.

Much of what the records revealed were performance shortcomings by CPS rather than confidential information about children.

Rep. Jonathan Paton, R-Tucson, an advocate for opening CPS records, said the newspapers’ actions clearly pushed CPS toward improvements.

• The Citizen sought, with some success, the administrative paperwork behind Lute Olson’s leave of absence.

We didn’t go to court, because after University of Arizona officials fretted, fumed and flouted over our requests, they produced a big stack of documents. Key aspects were excluded or blacked out.

We learned enough via the paperwork and interviews to tell how the basketball coach’s leave was handled relative to the law and campus policy.

These are but a few examples of how your rights are protected in regard to knowing what’s going on in government.

It’s good, then, to pause for celebration of Sunshine Week as recognition of the efforts on many fronts to keep it our government and not theirs.

Reach Michael A. Chihak at 573-4646 or mchihak@tucsoncitizen.com

———

TO LEARN MORE More on Sunshine Week

Much ado about basketball at the University of Arizona comes as the university faces even deeper cuts in its academic and research programs than it already has made.

The turmoil over Lute Olson and basketball is inconsequential relative to the damage being done to the core of the educational institution.

Yet, we work up more steam over basketball than we did over the loss of a world-class economist who won the Nobel Prize after leaving UA.

And we get into a frothier lather over a football program that isn’t even mediocre than we do over students having to delay graduation because they can’t get the needed classes.

The heart of Arizona’s future, economically and culturally, is in jeopardy as the university system stands at the chopping block, where it likely will lose a few fingers, toes and maybe an arm or a leg.

When the cuts come, bet that none will affect appendages that can shoot a basketball or catch a football or run the bases.

More’s the pity for us and for the future of the state.

For more blogs: http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/blogs

The lesson of the Bush tax cuts is that actions by the president and Congress have a limited positive effect, certainly less than they will admit, on the free-market economy. Often, their impact is negative.

“The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.” John Kenneth Galbraith, economist (1908-2006)

How are the Bush administration tax cuts working out for you? What? You say we’re near, if not in, recession?

How could that be? Tax cuts touted as major stimulus for the economy when passed a few years back remain in effect, don’t they?

Indeed they do. But whatever positive effect they had has faded to nothingness. In fact, the White House’s own reckoning a couple of years back was that the tax cuts added a piddling 0.7 percent to gross domestic product, offset by higher interest rates.

We should bear that in mind as we consider the economic stimulation proposals of the three leading presidential candidates.

For the lesson of the Bush tax cuts is that actions by the president and Congress have a limited positive effect, certainly less than they will admit, on the free-market economy. Often, their impact is negative.

American history is replete with presidential economic stimulus ideas that started out redolent and ended up reeking.

It’s admittedly naive to think that presidential policy and actions don’t affect the economy. It’s equally naive to think, as many a president would have us do, that their policies and actions are main drivers of the economy.

George W. Bush’s economic policies, based on the tax cuts, are a good example. The cuts exacerbated the credit bubble, which is the chief cause of the economic jam we’re in now.

Bush is not alone. Among his predecessors: Franklin Roosevelt’s many manipulations had minimal economic effect during the Great Depression; Jimmy Carter’s every move made the economy worse; Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts were followed by recession; Bill Clinton’s tax increases were followed, inexplicably to him and many, by a sustained economic boom and unprecedented job growth.

The lesson again is that we shouldn’t buy what Bush’s would-be successors propose for economic success.

Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama want more protectionism by rolling back aspects of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

One problem is that we’re no longer the dominant force in the world economy, and it’s absolutely necessary for the United States to be an active, engaged participant in the complex global economy.

Obama wants to offer more government help via infusions of public money for job transition and training.

Clinton’s proposals are similar – big federal spending on various training, education and worker programs.

Remember the lesson of Franklin Roosevelt: Federal spending didn’t budge the economy out of depression.

Republican John McCain is taking the party line, or lines, by saying he wants to make permanent the Bush tax cuts and by adopting George H.W. Bush’s fatalistic “read my lips” approach to taxation.

We’re living with the lesson of the tax cuts, and the elder Bush is living with the legacy of being a one-term president for his empty promise about taxes.

Our grand democracy isn’t only about freedom of speech and religion. It’s also about economic freedom, including freedom from the constraints of government, imposed in the fashion of economically ill-equipped political leaders.

Thus, when it comes to economic issues, caveat emptor in deciding whom you want to lead the country.

Reach Michael A. Chihak at 573-4646 or mchihak@tucsoncitizen.com

One cannot let pass the truculent pounding that the media - and not just the likes of that loquacious loudmouth Rush Limbaugh - is perpetrating on Hillary Clinton.

Forget the slime job that The New York Times did on Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

Likely, the Times did our Arizona homeboy a favor, at least for the short term.

The crime of the year so far is the media dismantling of Democrat Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy.

Don’t misinterpret, please: Clinton isn’t my favorite. In the presidential race, I remain undecided, which is a pretty good place to be at this stage.

But one cannot let pass the truculent pounding that the media – and not just the likes of that loquacious loudmouth Rush Limbaugh – is perpetrating on Clinton.

Inscrutably, the “liberal” media have been in the vanguard of the bashing, including The New York Times, CBS News’ “60 Minutes” and others.

Sunday’s Times was themed to a presumed Clinton demise. Page One pictured her wearing a resigned look on her face. The story’s second sentence said: “She rarely uses phrases like ‘When I’m president’ anymore.”

The same day, Times liberal columnists Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich tag-teamed on the theme that Clinton’s time has come and gone.

Dowd started her column: “If this is truly the Decline and Fall of the Clinton Empire . . . ”

Right next to it, Rich began: “When people look back at the remarkable implosion of the Hillary Clinton campaign . . . ”

CBS News’ “60 Minutes” program on Feb. 10 offered such distinctly unbalanced interviews with Obama and Clinton that one can’t help but think it was done on purpose.

Obama’s interview was aired first – a sign in and of itself – with correspondent Steve Kroft asking about his experience, momentum and the war in Iraq.

Then came Kroft’s thoughts: “Through 12 long months of mind-numbing, muscle-aching, adrenaline-fueled monotony and exhaustion, there has been barely a misstep.”

Correspondent Katie Couric asked Clinton early in her interview if she likes Obama – what is this, fourth grade? – and was two-thirds through the interview before asking any issue-based questions.

Couric began with questions about Clinton’s stamina, including: “How do you do it? I mean, the satellite interviews, the speeches, the travel, the debates, the schmoozing, the picture taking, 24/7.”

CBS’ message was clear: Obama is intelligent, charis- matic, poetlike; Clinton is a woman, and gosh, given that handicap, how does she hold up under the strain of it all?

The conclusion also is clear: Don’t rely on one source; get all the information possible from as many sources as possible before deciding on your vote.

• • •

W e have known since the day we hired him in 2004 that Anthony Gimino was highly talented.

Now, the Associated Press Sports Editors agrees, naming Anthony one of 2007′s 10 best in two national categories – column writing and game story – for newspapers of our size.

The organization also named the Citizen’s sports section among the country’s 20 best in its circulation division.

Anthony won for game story for 2005. The sports section has been in the top 20 seven times since 2000, including six top 10s.

Congratulations to Anthony and to Sports Editor Mike Chesnick and the entire staff.

Reach Michael A. Chihak at 573-4646 or mchihak@tucsoncitizen.com

Tiger Woods tees off before a packed gallery during the first day of the WGC-Accenture Match Play Champonship last week.

It’s hard to think that a metro area of 1 million people isn’t “on the map.”

That’s Tucson, though. Some are using that phrase in reference to what they say the match play golf tournament at Dove Mountain did for us last week. The tournament ended Sunday with a Tiger Woods victory.

Not that we mind the economic infusion or the terrific views of our desert beamed to the entire country by the Golf Channel and NBC Sports. Or the presence of the world’s best golfer in our cactus-studded backyard.

But it’s just a golf tournament. Once a year.

Let’s skip the Sally Fields reaction – “You like me. You really like me!” – to Tucson’s ability to attract such an event.

Self-confidence is half the battle. Let’s overcome the collective inferiority complex manifest by many community leaders over what Tucson can do.

Their attitude is getting in the way of true accomplishment.

• For more blogs, go to www.tucsoncitizen.com/blogs.

Unnamed sources are used in the Citizen's locally produced stories only after we discuss them, determine their importance in telling a story and know the circumstances under which we got the information and why it has to be attributed without naming the sources.

“I’m very disappointed in the article. It’s not true.” Sen. John McCain

Unnamed sources will get a newspaper into trouble more often than not.

Which is why, to at least some extent, there is such an odious reaction to The New York Times over its story this week about Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

The Times relied largely on unnamed sources in reporting that McCain had a relationship with a lobbyist for telecommunications companies interested in matters on which McCain had influence as a senator.

The use of unnamed sources automatically raised a credibility issue for the Times and for the information in the story.

We all use unnamed sources from time to time. They are necessary, occasionally.

The Tucson Citizen uses them for our own reporting only under the strictest rules.

Unnamed sources are used in the Citizen’s locally produced stories only after we discuss them, determine their importance in telling a story and know the circumstances under which we got the information and why it has to be attributed without naming the sources.

Information from an unnamed source cannot be used in a locally produced story unless one of two top editors knows who it is and questions the reporter about it.

That leaves open the question of what we do about stories from wire services that have unnamed sources in them.

Other news organizations have their own sourcing rules, so they don’t necessarily match ours. Thus, we may occasionally run a story from The Associated Press or another news service that has unnamed sources in it.

We try to limit their usage.

In the case of the McCain story, his and the political world’s reactions to it and the firestorm over the Times’ handling of it all quickly became key elements of the story.

Reporting the story, then, required a repetition of some of the information from the Times’ unnamed sources.

The initial story has perhaps opened issues about McCain, but it clearly led to the unfolding of potentially larger stories.

One of them is the coalescence occurring in favor of McCain among those who complain over what they call the liberal nature of the Times and other media outlets.

Another is the overall credibility of the media, an ongoing story that demands concise introspection by us and further exploration by all.

• • •

Tucsonans have a wonderful opportunity to hear one of the best military bands in the land, and the Citizen is proud to be part of it.

The Concert Band of the U.S. Air Force Band of the West will play for free at 7 p.m. March 6 at Palo Verde Magnet High School.

Information from the Air Force describes the band as 45 musicians playing a wide range of music, from the Renaissance, Broadway musicals, Sousa marches and top-40 hits.

The band is from Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas. It travels and plays throughout Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and Louisiana.

The Citizen is sponsoring the band’s Tucson concert.

To get free tickets, send a self-addressed, stamped envelope to Band of the West Tickets, care of the Tucson Citizen, 4850 S. Park Ave., Tucson, AZ 85714.

Reach Michael A. Chihak at 573-4646 or mchihak@tucsoncitizen.com

Michael A. Chihak

“I’m in with the in crowd;

“I go where the in crowd goes.

“I’m in with the in crowd;

“And I know what the in crowd knows.”

“The In Crowd”

Songwriter Billy Page

Remember your high school in crowd, that visible, yet secretive and impenetrable social group?

Then at your class reunion 10 years later you discovered the real secret: There wasn’t anything “in” about them.

The Bush administration acts like that high school in crowd: secretive and impenetrable.

The only difference is that what the Bush in crowd keeps secret is the people’s business.

Yet the administration clings to protecting information, even taking constitutionally questionable steps to keep secrets.

The latest came after Congress passed what many open-government advocates called the most important freedom of information legislation in years.

President Bush signed the bill – S. 2488, the Open Government Act – on Dec. 31. It updated the 42-year-old Freedom of Information Act and created avenues for people to obtain governmental information that is rightfully theirs.

But the American Society of Newspaper Editors said in a statement:

“The White House has since taken action that cuts at the heart of the legislation by refusing to implement one of the key provisions, as the bill’s sponsors and supporters intended.”

The problem comes with the law’s provision for an ombudsman to represent people trying to get federal information.

Sponsoring Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and John Cornyn, R-Texas, wanted the ombudsman put in the National Archive and Records Administration.

That’s because of the archive staff’s experience in handling government records and “its relative independence on matters of FOIA policy,” ASNE said.

The Bush administration perfidiously chose to ignore that intent, as it has done with hundreds of other pieces of legislation passed by Congress.

Bush’s 2008-2009 federal budget proposal puts ombudsman responsibility in the Justice Department.

That’s right where much of the problem rests with freedom of information or, more accurately, lack of freedom.

It’s where then-Attorney General John Ashcroft issued instructions to federal agencies to presume secrecy over openness when asked for records.

Worse, the editors’ association says, putting ombudsman responsibility there sets up a fox-henhouse situation:

“The Department of Justice cannot act as an advocate for FOIA requesters . . . (because it would) create an inherent conflict with the department’s current role as the government’s lawyer when defending denial of a FOIA request in court.”

The in crowd has created a classic Catch-22 with this move. It’s a continuation of the Bush administration’s disdain for the will of Congress and the people.

But as in high school, this in crowd is in entropy. In 339 days, it will be gone, all the better for freedom of information.

Reach Michael A. Chihak at 573-4646 or mchihak@tucsoncitizen.com.

Selection of candidates’ photos done with lots of thought

Compare the posed photo of me that usually runs with my column (left) to the candid image of me in which I bear a goofy look.

Readers are complaining that we have a bias in selecting photos of presidential candidates.

Several raised the issue this week over our choice of a Hillary Clinton photo printed Monday with pictures of five other presidential candidates.

“It seemed that in this one instance, (the picture of) everyone else was calm,” reader Sue Banfield said. “But here’s the woman, shown screaming.”

Indeed, the photo of Clinton showed her with a much more animated expression than those of her male counterparts.

Just as with words, we strive for fairness in photos, down to the looks on candidates’ faces.

The issue first arose for us in 2000 when readers said photos we ran of candidate George W. Bush made him look “goofy.”

It came up again in 2004 over photos we printed of President Bush when he sought re-election against Sen. John Kerry.

No one complained about Kerry photos that made him look old, tired, like a basset hound or otherwise badly. We ran them because, well, that’s what Kerry looks like.

Just as Bush sometimes is photographed with a smirk or other look on his face that can be described as a bit goofy.

You know what I mean: Who among us hasn’t been pictured looking other than what we see in the mirror or our mind’s eye?

Example: Compare the posed photo of me that usually runs with my column (far left) to the candid image of me in which I bear a goofy look (left).

Photo Editor P.K. Weis chose the picture of me that normally runs. He selects most of our photos from among thousands taken by Citizen staff and Associated Press photographers.

Here’s a little of what his sometimes daunting job entails.

“We get 1,500 to 2,000 photos daily from the AP,” Weis said. “They average 200 from the (presidential) campaigns. . . . On Super Tuesday, we got around 400 to 500 (campaign) photos.”

How does he choose?

“We might pick 20 different poses and then lay those next to each other, looking for same image size and similar poses, so faces and sizes are the primary concern,” he said.

“Usually, the photos on the wire have been selected (by AP) because they are good views of the candidate, so our selection is based more on balance than anything else. Usually, the views are all the same – spirited, enthusiastic – but do they reflect the tone of the story?”

It’s hard for those making the selections. We do it often only after lengthy discussion.

I am confident that our choices provide balance in depiction of presidential candidates.

Correction
Last week’s column contained an error. I mistakenly said a new law bolstering access to federal records reversed a Bush administration policy that favored secrecy.

In fact, the reversal was killed. That means many records will wrongfully remain secret.

It would have negated a post-9/11 policy of then-Attorney General John Ashcroft. He told agencies to presume secrecy over openness when people sought records, the opposite of previous federal practice.

Another administration move to keep the wraps on public records came this week when responsibility for policing compliance with open records law went to the Justice Department. More about that next week.

Reach Michael A. Chihak at 573-4646 or mchihak@tucsoncitizen.com

———

VOTE IN OUR ONLINE POLL
Everyone knows that a picture is worth a thousand words. But could it also be worth a thousand votes?

Some Citizen readers say the newspaper is trying to sway public opinion in the race for president by publishing flattering, or unflattering, photos of the candidates. We’ve decided to put that claim to the test.

Vote in our survey. We’ll print the results next week.

Three people complained in conversations Monday that each had recently experienced total unresponsiveness from Tucson area elected officials over various inquiries.

We won’t name names – not yet, anyway. Suffice for now to say that the instances involve two members of the Tucson City Council and one member of the Pima County Board of Supervisors.

Getting absolutely no response seems unusual in local politics.

But it was unusual to hear in one day of no response in three unrelated instances, involving three elected officials and three sets of circumstances.

Other peccadilloes and inadequacies aside, Tucson area politicians generally are punctilious about constituent services and constituent response.

Maybe this is just an unusual coincidence. Maybe it was simply a day to run into three people grumpy or upset about lack of political and governmental response.

In each case, the plan is to inquire as to why there was no response and report back via this blog or other means, as appropriate.

That is, if the politicians in question respond.

Read another blog: Trashing Bush

A bipartisan group of senators and representatives has created an opening, saying the American people deserve to know what their government is doing.

“Freedom of information has come to be defined as a special interest of the press. In reality, it’s a fundamental democratic right.” Charles N. Davis, journalism professor, University of Missouri

Lovers of democracy and freedom – that’s all of us, no? – should rejoice over congressional action improving governmental openness.

Congress late last year passed legislation strengthening the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, known as FOIA. President Bush signed the bill, called the Open Government Act, on Dec. 31.

As a result, we can expect – nay, we can demand! – greater governmental openness.

And not a moment too soon.

Openness and access, along with public confidence, have eroded in recent years, most especially since big, unnecessary clampdowns after 9/11.

The federal government has built a wall around what it does, with sometimes years-long delays in the release of information that rightfully belongs to the people.

Some of it is the crush of bureaucracy, some neglect or carelessness. But most is stonewalling, pure and simple.

The involuted workings of the Bush administration contribute greatly to the harm.

After the terrorist attacks in 2001, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft instructed federal agencies to presume a need for secrecy rather than for openness when public information was being sought.

That instruction flies in the face of true democracy.

Ashcroft’s position led government to close the lid, and federal agencies hid information from those to whom government ought to have the greatest fealty – we the people.

Label it protection, national security or what you like. It boiled down to an all-out effort to govern from behind a wall.

Now a bipartisan group of senators and representatives has created an opening, saying the American people deserve to know what their government is doing.

That idea outflanks the dissemblings of politicians and bureaucrats who want to keep secrets from us for what they claim to be our own good.

We will decide what is for our own good, thank you very much.

The new law reverses the Ashcroft presumption by requiring agencies to release records absent a finding that doing so will be harmful.

The law prescribes consequences for agencies that miss deadlines or withhold information that should be released.

The legislation requires a response to all FOIA requests within 20 days and sets up a tracking system for requests that aren’t met beyond that.

An ombudsman to mediate disputes also is authorized.

Biggest of all, the legislation will allow people to recover legal fees when they must go to court to get information.

It’s a move back to government of, by and for the people.

Reach Michael A. Chihak at 573-4646 or mchihak@tucsoncitizen.com

Ensconced in the middle of President Bush’s 50-minute State of the Union address Monday were 157 words about immigration reform.

Bush touted the results of changed security measures along the border and then explained, in succinct and understandable terms, why immigration reform is necessary:

“We also need to acknowledge that we will never fully secure our border until we create a lawful way for foreign workers to come here and support our economy.

“We must also find a sensible and humane way to deal with people here illegally. Illegal immigration is complicated, but it can be resolved, and it must be resolved in a way that upholds both our laws and our highest ideals.”

Bush thus continued to show that he recognizes the country’s need for immigrant labor and the need for “a sensible and humane” plan for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the country now.

Although his position won’t gain any traction this year, it is economically realistic.

• For more blogs, go to www.tucsoncitizen.com/blogs.

The events, taken collectively, are a pseudo-sapient jumble of rhetoric, business, politicking and other glad-handing.

State of the (Your Political Entity Here) speech season is fully upon us.

The season opener was last week, when Gov. Janet Napolitano served up the hot, fresh State of the State in Phoenix before the Legislature.

A couple of days later, Tucson got the rewarmed leftovers, along with – you guessed it – a chicken entree for lunch.

Next will come State of the Union, the granddaddy of them all and the only such oratory sanctioned by the U.S. Constitution (Article 2, Section 3). George W. Bush will address Congress on Monday.

Then Friday, Tucson Mayor Bob Walkup will unleash his take on progress and promises in his State of the City ramble.

Shortly thereafter, we can anticipate State of the County, State of the 7th Congressional District, the 8th Congressional District and perhaps State of the School District.

Will they be followed by State of the Wastewater Treatment System and State of the Mosquito Abatement District?

Sure, if the Chamber of Commerce thinks it can draw a crowd. Really, these local events ought to be called State of the Chamber, because that’s what they have become.

The Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce puts on the local versions to, in this order: raise money, stroke egos and pretend to enlighten.

The chamber carefully guards the state of speech franchise, muscling out other business and civic groups.

Why? one should ask. The events, taken collectively, are a pseudo-sapient jumble of rhetoric, business, politicking and other glad-handing.

They lack for theater, but the see-and-be-seen flock wouldn’t dare miss one, explained by a Mark Twain observation: “When God created man, it was fine. But when he created the sheep, it was tautology.”

Politicians know this – many are of the ovine genus themselves – and thus they deliver populist pap or cheer-laden chicanery, drawing applause and little else, in the immediate aftermath or for the year hence.

Wait till next year.

No, let’s not. Let’s instead change the format of this serial fiasco. Require reality-based, short speeches. Even better, let the common folk – those who don’t normally attend – be the speakers, while the politicians sit and listen. Skip the chicken déjà vu and plan the menu around the speech themes.

Here’s how that might work on a few important topics:

• State of the Taxpayer: Beleaguered; no relief in sight. Menu: Unhappy meal.

• State of the Schoolchild: Overtested and undertaught. Menu: Cafeteria mystery meat.

• State of Rio Nuevo: Big bankroll, no bang for the bucks. Menu: Warmed-over baloney.

• State of the Motorist: Detoured and photographed. Menu: Chicken catch-a-speeder.

• State of the Baseball Stadium District: Soon to be teamless, leaving you know who in debt. Menu: Buns, no hot dogs.

• State of the Local Politician: Clueless and getting cluelesser. Meal: Bagel, as in zero.

• State of the Tucsonan: Mad as hell. Menu: Cake, as in “Let ‘em eat . . . ”

Reach Michael A. Chihak at 573-4646 or mchihak@tucsoncitizen.com