Paper gave ‘plain old people’ a voice

I am very sad because I am losing a good friend, the Citizen. I have enjoyed your excellent paper since we came to Tucson in 1951.

Special thanks to my journalism hero Tony Tselentis, editorial page editor, who shared his valuable insights about community issues, printed our letters and sent our questions and concerns to the news side to cover.

Thanks also to the wonderful investigative reporters (Jon Kaman, etc.), who dug out the facts about many critical issues like the fraudulent Butterfield freeway public opinion survey and the GAC plan to convert Empire Ranch to a huge bedroom community.

The Citizen gave us plain old people a voice so we could be effective.

Time has moved on. Thanks to the new crew who continue quality news and editorial coverage – Mark (Kimble), Billie (Stanton) and the other good folk who carry on.

Soon we citizens will lose an important voice. I will miss you greatly.

Ruth Holzinger Stokes

Kudos to former Citizen journalists

The only way I have to express how much I’ll miss the paper is to tell my story. Most of all I’ll miss Billie Stanton. She is irreplaceable.

The summer of 1967 was the happiest time of my life. The Tucson Citizen gave me the chance to continue my newspaper career in a new town, in a new job.

The job was as city desk assistant, working with Tom Duddleston and Keith Carew.

The staff was great – so warm and friendly, like a big family, pre-computer with more time for each other.

I was able to continue my journalism career, which began in Columbus, Ohio, in 1942 as one of five war-time staff photographers on the Columbus Citizen newspaper.

In 1956, I had gone to New York and married Bruce Hopkins, a New York Mirror photographer. The paper folded.

John Hemmer, a former staffer there, offered Bruce a job here. So here we were.

I retired when I was 62.

At the Tucson Citizen, we made longtime personal friends, such as my 30-year-friend Allison Hock-Rose, who started as a teen intern.

She recently was in town, and we discussed old times.

From the old building, these staffers deserve to be remembered – and bosses, too:

William Small Jr., Paul McKalip, George Rosenberg, Clyde Lowery, Tony Tselentis, Mary Brown, Mary Moody, Micheline “Mike” Keating, Nicki Donahue, Ellen Crosby, Anne Ross, Corky Simpson, Bill Hopkins, John Winters, Dan Pavillard, Sue Giles, Mary Gerdan Hunt, Judy Terlizzi, Regis McAuly, Paul Allen and Jeannie Jett.

WILMA S. HOPKINS

Fine work of staff won’t be forgotten

How do you say “thank you” to so many people who have made a difference in your life, professionally and personally?

After being in the military more than 21 years, you would think I would know how to say goodbye to friends and comrades on the newspaper side of the house.

News that the Tucson Citizen will close came as a surprise to me, and soon it will be a reality.

I want to thank all those reporters, photographers, editors and the weekly Calendar magazine for working with me for the past seven years.

Working together to get the news to and about our nation’s heroes, veterans and their families has truly been the fruit of our combined labor.

What a joy it has been to have worked personally with Anne Denogean, Heidi Rowley, Sheryl Kornman, Billie Stanton, Val Cañez, Norman Jean Gargasz, Larry Copenhaver and so many others who made our news a focus of interest and personal reflection.

As the book is slowly closed on this historical newspaper, let us wish all those who shared our cheers and sometimes our tears the best of future hopes and dreams, as they will not be forgotten in my heart.

Let us remember not how the newspaper died, but how it lived! Thanks for the memories, Tucson Citizen!

PEPE MENDOZA

fellow journalist

Gaslight indebted to Chuck Graham

We at The Gaslight Theatre will be forever indebted to Mr. Chuck Graham.

Over the years, Chuck has faithfully reviewed all of our shows. A large part of our growth and success can be credited to the dedication and professionalism of Chuck Graham. He has been fair, honest and always helpful with his reviews.

As a small business, we rely on every type of public relations opportunity available. Losing the Tucson Citizen and Chuck’s reviews will leave a gap that will be hard to fill.

All of us in The Gaslight Family would like to thank you, Chuck, for all of your hard work and support of The Gaslight Theatre over the years. We wish you all the best and lots of continued success as you set out on the next phase of your career.

Tony Terry & The Gaslight Family

owner, The Gaslight Theatre

Bryan Lee was advocate for athletes

It is a shame that the Citizen is closing; good people will lose their jobs, and the community will lose your expertise.

A free press is the cornerstone of a healthy citizenry, and we will miss your varied voices.

Thanks to the entire staff for working so diligently to provide our community with news of the city.

I want to acknowledge one writer in particular: Bryan Lee. Bryan has written countless articles about the health and fitness community over the years, whether in the Sports pages, Outdoors, Body Plus or elsewhere.

He has been an advocate for local competitive athletes and a champion of healthy living.

Thank you, Bryan, for all that you’ve done for Tucson.

Randy Accetta

Southern Arizona Roadrunners

Stay in Tucson, employees; we need you

My family and I will miss the Tucson Citizen. We’ve especially appreciated the thoughtful editorial page in recent years.

Arizona media will be poorer with the Citizen gone.

Hopefully, Citizen journalists and employees will stay in Tucson and be involved in the community in other positive ways.

Daniel Patterson

state representative, LD 29

Liberals denounce all that is good about U.S.

There have been many labels to describe those who are seen to be disloyal to their own kind.

When one betrays his own country, he is said to be a traitor. Traitors have been dealt with harshly during times past.

Lately, in the guise of being “diverse” or “tolerant,” many seem to have forgotten old labels such as “faithful” or loyal” or any other label identifying those traditionally valued virtues.

And so, there exist within organizations such as our country those who think nothing of betraying the entity that has given them so much.

To compound their felonies, so to speak, they are not content to sell their own souls cheaply; they feel the need to take others with them to their final dubious rewards.

Such it is with the modern liberal who denounces all that is holy, traditional and decent about his country.

He ignores history and he, like the lemming, does not see the cliffs beyond his limited view.

Eugene Cole

retired

Newspaper demise means city’s less Safier

The Tucson Citizen’s demise will at last give us relief from the disparate rantings of ultraliberal Joan Safier, retired teacher.

For years, Ms. Safier has been published at the frequency allowed by the liberal Citizen, always deprecating capitalism and freedom as though our constitutional government were our enemy rather than our salvation.

Ms. Safier’s viewpoint on banking shows a misunderstanding of our financial industry’s structure and functions. The recent collapse of these markets proves that capitalism works, for when people secure loans too large for their capacity or budget, the market punishes them.

The problem was compounded by the government bailouts, which did not allow the market to work until much greater damage had been done.

Foreclosures in Arizona are difficult for those who experienced them, but personal responsibility is necessary in all financial transactions. One must own his mistakes.

Ms. Safier did get it right when she said closing tax loopholes is like raising taxes on corporations for those corporations that have gone offshore.

Corporations are formed to provide goods and services and to make profit. When government intrudes, such as with “green” rules and regulations, the corporations sometimes must go offshore in order to stay in business.

So now the government wants to again penalize the corporation by confiscating those offshore profits through taxes.

Worse is her cry for “universal health care.” This plea for total “nanny care” will be the sandbag that breaks the nation’s back.

Universal health care will be used to justify any restraint on freedom. For if the state has to cure one, it will want to restrict or prevent the need for treatment in the first place.

When treatment must be provided, it will want to ration that treatment and so on.

Needs testing will follow for older people, and who is to say your need is high enough to warrant treatment? Hello Canada and Great Britain. No service available!

I am thankful Ms. Safier is now retired and can no longer indoctrinate her pupils with her liberal diatribes.

Garland D. Cox

Health of America depends on single-pay

It is critical that a single-pay health care system be implemented.

We have done the other way for years. Why are we the only First World country without a health care system for all of its citizens?

We can’t continue to support the CEOs and the top 1 percent of our country with money, or just insurance for our senators and members of Congress but not for the regular citizens.

Karyl Williams

Sahuarita

Reform is medicine to cure national care

With the United States at the top of every list of nations on health care delivery and cost, but way down the list on rate of mortality and morbidity, it is time for to put single-payer health care on the table.

Our present health care system must be reformed.

Dorothy McKenna

Green Valley

Privacy of minors online a major issue

Minors don’t have the legal capacity to sign away “privacy” on sites such as Facebook and MySpace.

That is an important thing to consider when all these sites claim the defenses of “privacy agreements.”

Minors do not have capacity to enter into contracts, and they can be disaffirmed at any time by minors.

Steve Brandon

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords

Arizona’s oldest continuously published newspaper will hit Tucson newsstands and doorsteps for the last time on May 16.

As a longtime reader of the Tucson Citizen, I think I speak for many when I say the paper’s closure will be like saying goodbye to an old, trusted friend.

What a friend it has been. The Citizen already was 11 years old when it told us about Wyatt Earp’s shootout at the OK Corral in 1881. It had been around 42 years when Arizona became a state in 1912. And when the city of Tucson celebrated its bicentennial in 1975, the Citizen had a 105-year record of reporting behind it.

Tucson will be very different without the Citizen. Our community will have one fewer voice, one fewer watchdog, one fewer place to go for the news we need to understand our increasingly complex world.

Many believe that, as an afternoon newspaper, the Citizen’s days have long been numbered. Perhaps, but the loss of the Citizen is emblematic of a far more troubling trend. The entire newspaper industry is struggling as never before, thanks in part to a seismic shift in how we get our news.

Today the Internet, not the daily newspaper, serves as our window to the world.

For news junkies and avid newspaper readers, this is a truly sad turn of events. I count myself among this shrinking community.

Sure, going online is fast and handy. But old school types love newspapers – we love holding them, with a cup of coffee at hand, and learning about what has happened in our neighborhood, city, state and country.

Some of us – the real die-hards – even like comparing competing articles and editorials on the same subject among rival newspapers. Tucson was one of the few cities where this was possible; ours was one of the last two-newspaper towns left in America.

With the demise of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the Rocky Mountain News in Denver over the past month, Tucson is by no means alone in having to rely on one newspaper. That, however, is little comfort. Competition is a good thing for newspapers, as it is for any business.

Having two newspapers fostered a competitive spirit that allowed the Tucson Citizen and Arizona Daily Star to bring out the best in each another. Reporters, editors and photographers at each of our papers wanted to scoop the other guy. In that race, readers were the winners.

Since 1870, the Citizen has kept southern Arizonans informed. We didn’t always agree with an editorial position or like the angle of a news story, yet we kept reading.

We needed the Citizen. Sometimes we needed it to figure out a City Council decision. Sometimes we needed it to tell us how the Wildcats did. And sometimes we just needed it to tell us when movies began at The Loft.

The point is, the Citizen was there for us.

From the era of the Butterfield Overland Stage to the Phoenix Mars Mission, the Citizen helped chronicle Arizona’s amazing journey from a rough and tumble territory to the second-fastest growing state in the country.

It was an indispensable part of our community. It educated us, entertained us and inspired us. It will be missed.

Goodbye, dear friend.

Gabrielle Giffords is a member of the U.S. House representing Tucson and southern Arizona.

Corky Simpson and Jeff Smith

The parade’s gone by. No more trumpets. No more drums. No hoofbeats, no streamers.

And the hush of the street is overwhelming.

The death of a newspaper is very much the end of a living, breathing soul. And there’s never been one quite as unique as the Tucson Citizen.

Years from now when you tell young people what the Citizen was like, remember this: It had a heartbeat.

It was the harvest, the milling and the preparation of ideas by people of character, most of whom were characters. They gave the paper its heart, its spirit and its blemishes.

Some had swagger, and over the years many had stagger.

We’ve been peopled by saints and sinners, wise men and flim-flammers and in the old days, a few fall-down drunks who always got up in time to put the old gal to bed.

We’ve had Daniel Boone characters who talked like Jed Clampett and wrote like Stephen Vincent Benet.

We’ve had stutterers who sounded like Mortimer Snerd but had a mind like Carl Sagan.

And there were the legends.

Ted Craig was a gifted editor and writer, but his real talent was the telling of tall tales. Well, that and sizing down human monuments to arrogance.

Ted was a fine athlete, though he didn’t exactly look the part. He was an outstanding golfer because he hit the ball so straight, no matter what club he used.

He also played a good game of tennis and was known to pack the most potent “grapefruit juice” ever tasted in his Thermos bottle.

Phil Hamilton was an Okie. I mean, he dripped Okie. He lived in my part of town and gave me a ride one day after I’d left my old Ford with Bill the mechanic at Palo Verde Automotive out on East 22nd Street.

“Cain’t have a body out in this heat, footback a’ walkin,’ ” Hamilton drawled.

Phil did everything. Reported, edited, wrote a column, covered politics, read copy, wrote headlines. And he was superb.

Bob Campbell was one of the funniest men who ever lived. Our liaison with the back shop when we actually had a back shop, Bob occasionally came to work late – and always had a story to tell to start off the day.

Such as the time, around Halloween, when Campbell announced he knew exactly how many people had come to his house to trick or treat – even though Bob wasn’t at home.

“I went to the bank and got 20 shiny new silver dollars,” he said, “and I spread them out on a card table in my front yard. When I got home, every one of them was gone, so I know conclusively, that there were 20 trick-or-treaters.”

Stu Robertson was a copy editor who occasionally nodded off late in the day. One afternoon he had a cigarette between two fingers and he had that hand on his forehead as he drifted into dreamland – and set his hair on fire.

Micheline Keating wrote the most beautiful movie reviews you’ve ever read. Somebody told me “Mike” had been a friend of the famous writer-poet Dorothy Parker, known for her wit and wisecracks.

John Jennings may not have been the best storyteller on the old Citizen staff, but he could imitate storytellers in such a way that he outdid their talent. Just recently we laid our beloved “J.J.” to rest.

There were so many characters. Such as the guy on the copy desk way back when, who came to the Citizen out of rehab and who thought he was Humphrey Bogart. Had the lisp, the voice and the mannerisms. Unfortunately, he didn’t have Lauren Bacall.

For nearly 140 years the Citizen brought you news from around the community, the state, nation and world. Through war and peace, famine and times of plenty. From the frontier of territorial days through statehood.

Not just anyone can do this job and do it right. Not even trained journalists. Especially trained journalists!

It takes newspaper people, some of whose personal flaws over the years somehow enabled them to create professional refinement.

The awards, the prizes, the hardware from corporate honchos were just trinkets. The Citizen’s real honor was a decoration of the heart – hardworking professionals doing their best to give Tucson its best news coverage and presentation.

Now the little paper at Park and Irvington has been given its summons to join the innumerable once-upon-a-time caravan.

When you remember the time this city had two newspapers competing – and making each other better – don’t think of this one as the loser.

The loser is the community. Tucson has lost an essential voice, living, breathing, ink-stained history recorded by the finest, most competent and dedicated ding-a-lings on Earth.

Things happened, news broke and time passed away. So, now, has the Tucson Citizen.

The parade’s gone by.

And now, final words from Corky and Jeff

Our heart beat as one with the Old Pueblo’s

Corky Simpson is a retired sportswriter who graced our pages regularly from Labor Day 1974 to Dec. 22, 2006.

A 2004 photo taken at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq shows a female American soldier holding a dog leash fastened around a naked prisoner's neck.

If there was one incident that led to the decline in support for the Iraq war at home and abroad, it was the 2004 publication of pictures of U.S. soldiers taunting and abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

Those photos, broadcast endlessly into homes around the globe, depicted grinning American soldiers – male and female – next to naked Iraqi prisoners stacked in piles on the floor.

Others showed snarling dogs intimidating prisoners. And perhaps the most infamous revealed a female soldier leading a naked prisoner by a dog collar around his neck.

The soldiers who engaged in this rogue, illegal conduct were tried, convicted and went to prison. But the damage they did can never be fully expiated.

Now, a freedom of information filing by the American Civil Liberties Union threatens to open this old wound.

The ACLU filed suit in 2003 to obtain the release of all photos related to military detention, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals found in its favor last September. The Bush administration sought to reverse the ruling, but the Obama administration said in April it would not fight the release of the photos.

Then, President Obama reversed course this week, instructing the Justice Department to challenge the release in court on the grounds of national security.

President Obama now says that the publication of these photos “would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals.”

He added that the most direct consequence of releasing them “would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in danger.”

He did not come to this conclusion without help – namely from Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq; and Gen. David McKiernan, outgoing American commander in Afghanistan, who pushed Defense Secretary Robert Gates to urge the administration to fight the release of the photos.

Better late than never. Obama’s reversal comes after weeks of controversy over his Justice Department’s decision to release Bush administration memos giving legal justifications for the use of enhanced interrogation techniques on enemy combatants.

While the two actions strike some left-wing critics as contradictory, in fact they demonstrate the fine line Obama is trying to walk on Bush-era decisions.

On the one hand, Obama seems eager to punish Bush political appointees for aggressively prosecuting the war on terror.

On the other hand, he’s nervous about doing anything that might provoke more violence against American troops, especially if it might redound to the detriment of his own reputation and that of his administration.

If Obama acquiesces in the release of the photos and terrorist acts against American soldiers or civilians abroad follow, he knows he’ll be blamed.

But the Obama decision also reflects the larger shift on the left from blaming soldiers for their involvement in a sometimes unpopular war to trying to show some respect for military personnel while still attacking the political leaders who sent them to war.

Although Obama is not old enough to remember the Vietnam War personally, he’s nonetheless learned some of the lessons from that era.

Vietnam War protesters spat on American soldiers, literally and figuratively. Many burned the American flag, urged the victory of the communist guerrillas and ignored the torture of American prisoners of war in North Vietnam.

Some, such as Obama friend and political ally William Ayers, went further, engaging in grotesque acts of violence against military installations in the U.S. and later against the police.

The American people overwhelmingly rejected the excesses of these protesters, electing Richard M. Nixon twice.

With some exceptions – notably Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who accused American troops of committing atrocities in Haditha before investigations and courts martial cleared them; and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who accused American troops of terrorizing Iraqi children – most Democrats have tried to sound supportive of American soldiers.

I’d like to think this support is sincere, that they appreciate the sacrifice of the men and women who serve this country so the rest of us can be safe.

But even if President Obama’s decision not to release the photos was simply a cold, political calculation, we should be glad he made it.

Linda Chavez is chair of the Center for Equal Opportunity and author of “An Unlikely Conservative: The Transformation of an Ex-Liberal.” E-mail: lchavez@ceousa.org

Napolitano, get in line with Obama on border

Thank you for your May 10 editorial celebrating President Obama’s decision to pull funding from the budget for future border wall construction (“Obama move halts pointless, devastating border fence“).

The Sierra Club agrees this is great news for animals, plants and all borderland habitat.

But Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has said she will finish all 670 miles of Bush’s border wall, 624 of which have been built so far.

That means 46 more miles of environmentally devastating wall – bad news for wildlife.

In California’s Otay Mountain Wilderness, extensive erosion damage is resulting from haphazard new roads plowed through this formerly roadless wilderness area.

In Texas, significant portions of the Sabal Palms and Southmost Preserve refuges will be walled off if construction continues.

The Sierra Club asks Napolitano to suspend border wall construction to allow on-the-ground consultation and compliance with federal laws. It is time to make a clean break from past border policy.

Dan Millis

Borderlands Campaign, Sierra Club

For better circulation, end the paper chase

Maybe the circulation of both newspapers would be higher if the carriers would throw the papers where the subscribers ask them to.

Maybe other people get tired of having to complain over and over and just quit taking one or both of the papers.

All we ask is that the carriers throw the paper on our brick walkway, not on the driveway for cars to drive over and not in the neighbor’s driveway.

Sounds simple, doesn’t it? Not for the carriers. One wonders how many subscribers have been lost over the years because of such a simple issue.

Barbara Young

Green Valley

Government dole isn’t limited to just the poor

Fifteen years ago, I worked for the Department of Economic Security as a computer programmer, and about 10 percent of Arizonans were receiving food stamps.

That number has not changed much. Today, about 10 percent of the population of Arizona still receives food stamps.

I don’t have the number for people involved in other government welfare programs, but I suspect it is just as high.

Poor people are not the only ones on welfare programs. A lot of rich people are on the dole and get what we call “corporate welfare programs.”

A good example is the current bailout of millionare Wall Street brokers and bankers.

Mike Ross

Tempe

Raúl with the punches: It’s always about race

It figures that bigmouth (U.S. Rep.) Raúl Grijalva demands an apology from Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, for having made supposedly insensitive remarks toward Hispanics.

It’s always about “race” with Raúl, isn’t it?

He constantly tries to throw his considerable weight around.

If only he were concerned with the lousy performance of his congressional staff, which is predominantly Hispanic.

Who’s racist?

Alan Neff

Chorus of arts lovers, speak with one voice

If you appreciate arts of all kinds in Arizona, this is the time to speak up!

If you haven’t done so already, please take the time to write to all Arizona legislators, not just your local representatives.

This (current state budget plan) is just incredible.

This would mean we will lose our federal matching funds for arts programs.

The U.S. government gives $2 for every $1 provided by Arizona.

But what legislators are proposing currently is way below the threshold that is necessary to receive Obama’s arts money infusion.

Add your voice!

Catherine Nash

Rob Renfrow

Reader single-minded on health care demand

We, the American people, want health care.

We don’t want more insurance. We’ve had it.

I’m sick of paying an organization to tell me I can’t have procedures or medicines recommended by my physician.

I want single-payer health care! NOW!

Bob Williams

Sahuarita

Kill vulturous insurers so rest can carry on

Gaining control of runaway health care expenditures is to be accomplished by merely excluding the greedy health insurance companies from the system.

Health insurance companies consume 1 out of every 3 health care dollars and provide no health care value added.

They rake in the premiums, pay out on some claims, deny the rest and pay themselves handsomely for their pitiful contribution.

Physicians, hospitals and pharmacy companies are not the problem with our system, as they do provide health care value added.

Health insurance companies are nothing more than greedy Wall Street buzzards.

America needs to excise them from the system, and the sooner, the better.

William Hatalsky

Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling is among the British cabinet ministers whose questionable expense vouchers were published.

LONDON – There are titled people in Britain and then there are people who consider themselves entitled.

The current scandal here is that the entitled are not the growing number receiving benefits from government, but the many members of Parliament whose highly questionable expenses are jaw dropping, even to the most cynical observer.

In a series of front-page stories last week in The Daily Telegraph, expense vouchers of majority Labour Party members – including Prime Minister Gordon Brown and several Cabinet ministers – were published.

The newspaper paid an unidentified source for the information, which was due to be released free this summer.

Ordinarily, one might expect those who have been identified as milking the taxpayers for dubious personal expenses to express shame, or at least embarrassment. But instead, the members are unrepentant and fighting back.

Given the nature of the expensed items, it is doubtful they will persuade the British public, which continues to struggle financially.

Barbara Follett, the minister of culture, creative industries and tourism, claimed £25,000 in expenses for security because she doesn’t feel safe living in the Soho district.

Her husband is Ken Follett, a best-selling novelist and multimillionaire. It apparently didn’t occur to her to ask him to pay for her security detail, or move from a neighborhood she regards as unsafe to one in which she feels more secure.

Immigration Minister Phil Woolas expensed women’s clothing and toiletries, including tampons and diapers. Parliamentary rules allow expenses only for items that are “exclusively” for the MP’s use.

Unless the married Woolas is holding something back, it will be difficult for him to explain how tampons are for his personal use.

Members are allowed expenses for second homes. Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling, however, switched his second-home designation four times in four years, claiming the second-home benefit each time.

Darling recently proposed to increase the income tax to 50 percent. Perhaps he needs the money to help underwrite his expenses.

Margaret Moran, a parliamentarian from Luton South, expensed £22,500 of taxpayer money, just days after she switched her second-home designation, to repair dry rot at her and her husband’s seaside home – 200 miles from her constituency.

Dry rot seems to be a useful metaphor for the condition of Parliament.

As if the outrageous expense claims were not enough, what the Telegraph calls “begging letters” from parliamentarians whose expenses were rejected expose the grip the entitlement mentality has on many politicians.

One Labour MP appealed a ruling against him this way: “From a natural justice perspective, I feel a justifiable exception would be the fairest manner to deal with the current situation.” He wanted a £3,100 reimbursement for a 40-inch Sony TV.

Here’s another: “I object to your decision not to reimburse me for the costs of purchasing a baby’s cot for use in my London home. . . . Perhaps you might write to me explaining where my son should sleep next time he visits me in London?”

And another: “I would be very grateful if (the expenses) could be paid in the last round of the year on Friday. Otherwise, I might be in line for a divorce!”

Like relatives who overstay their welcome – consuming food and drink and soiling your home – at holiday time, politicians in Britain and America come to believe they are entitled to other people’s money simply because they win an election.

When the relatives leave, the owners usually give the place a good cleaning. That’s what Parliament (and Congress) needs to do.

The Labour Party might have handed the Conservatives a powerful issue if the latter had not also been feeding at the public trough. The Telegraph is following up its stories on Labour with similar reports on the Conservatives.

In addition to the second-home reimbursements, one Conservative, Cheryl Gillan, the shadow Welsh secretary, claimed an expense for dog food. (She at least promised to reimburse the government.)

David Cameron, the Conservative Party leader and potential prime minister, (he leads in the polls) apparently escaped embarrassment as his claims have been called “relatively straightforward” by the Telegraph. This might allow him to take on the role of reformer in the coming election campaign.

Conservatives should bring real change to a system that allowed one Labour member to expense the cleaning of his swimming pool. That might be defensible if the member could walk on water.

Cal Thomas is an author and broadcast commentator. E-mail: calthomas@tribune.com

BOB DAVIS

In these hard times, there are some new and exciting ways to do good for a cause, for yourself and for the community.

Some call it the new face of philanthropy, and it expands the notion of giving from just writing a check to giving of your own talents and becoming part of something bigger than yourself.

Gifts from billionaires such as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates may make the headlines, but those gifts remain less than 1 percent of all giving to nonprofits. In fact the biggest gifts are falling off sharply while people such as you and I are stepping up.

Along the way, our gifts can pay off for us in important ways, such as strengthening community bonds and letting us learn something new.

As someone who has given substantially for four decades, I can offer my own road map for helping in the “Help Wanted” era. Here goes:

First off, where might you give? Consider joining a “giving circle,” an idea that is the newest thing in national philanthropy.

Tucson offers many options, from the University of Arizona Galileo Circle in the sciences to the Rebounders at the athletics program. You might choose a circle that helps a cause you believe in, where you have personal contacts.

Giving circles promote smart, systematic giving and also let you be appreciated where it counts. In my case, I began to help out the UA in small ways as soon as I could afford to. I joined the President’s Club when I was just a $30,000-a-year employee. Now my spark is finding opportunities to promote research to keep the United States competitive.

With a target in mind, consider these three categories of philanthropy:

• Giving your talents.

• Giving your wealth.

• Giving your time and ideas.

By talents, I mean the areas in which you have real expertise. You may be an accountant, an attorney, a designer or in real estate. Imagine doing something “pro bono,” which means for the public good.

As a commercial real estate expert, I’ve helped UA by doing real estate studies, negotiating, collecting market data, setting the value of property or building.

Giving your wealth has an extra benefit. It lets you do more as you offset each gift with a tax deduction, so a gift of $10,000 is actually an out-of-pocket cost of $7,200 or even less, depending on your tax bracket.

Again, check out those giving circles, such as the UA sport interest groups with delightful names such as the Dugout Club and the Lungbusters. They make it fun to contribute.

The third kind of gift – your time – sometimes is overlooked. You can volunteer to be on a committee and help improve an organization. In my case, I started volunteering to help UA athletics but became hooked on research after I met Joaquin Ruiz, the superdean of the Faculty of Science.

These days, I donate my skills in real estate to find facilities for biotech research and have learned to understand biochemistry and lunar and space sciences.

Not so long ago, a woman in Seattle named Patsy Bullitt Collins followed a multifaceted formula for philanthropy. At first, she gave of her time and ideas to civic causes, and then, living very plainly, she quietly gave away more than $100 million in a family fortune she had inherited.

She was asked if she was trying to give back to society. She replied, “I don’t give back. I give forward.”

That’s it exactly. Find something in Tucson that energizes you enough to give, either on your own or in concert with others, to its future.

Bob Davis is senior vice president of Grubb & Ellis Co.

———

MORE ONLINE

For information on University of Arizona sport interest groups, go here.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan spelled out what most economists won't say: "Illegal immigration has made a significant contribution to the growth of our economy."

Democrats are in a tough spot on immigration reform. Actually, make that a number of tough spots.

For one thing, they’re caught between pandering to Latino constituents who want them to strike a deal that legalizes millions of illegal immigrants and catering to organized labor, which adamantly opposes the one element of reform Republicans say must be part of the deal: guest workers.

For another, now that Democrats control Congress and the White House, they’ve run out of excuses as to why they’re doing nothing.

But at the same time, they’d rather not do anything because as long as there is a stalemate, they can use the issue against Republicans.

After all, there are two ways to get ahead in politics: Make yourself look good or make your opponent look bad.

The immigration debate – and the xenophobic language that some Republicans have carelessly infused into it – helps Democrats look good to their Latino constituents.

But the spell is wearing off now that Latinos are beginning to wonder why Democrats can’t deliver immigration reform even when they have power. Answer: Because not all of them want to deliver.

It’s hard to know in which camp falls Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who recently called a hearing of a Senate subcommittee to explore the feasibility of achieving – or even discussing – immigration reform in the midst of an economic recession.

One of the high points was the testimony of former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who spelled out what most economists won’t say: “Illegal immigration has made a significant contribution to the growth of our economy.”

Meanwhile, labor claims the bad economy makes it unfeasible to bring in hundreds of thousands of new workers for jobs that Americans should be doing.

But that argument is disingenuous. The unions were just as opposed to guest workers when the economy was good.

That’s because one thing that hasn’t changed is that organized labor still sees itself as being in the protection business – protecting its members from the competition represented by foreign workers.

Democrats favor a reform package that would legalize the undocumented while making a cursory pass at border enforcement. But the package would leave out any mention of guest workers.

Yet ditching guest workers is an effective way to ensure that not a single Republican, in either the House or the Senate, will sign on to the final product. In fact, two of the most forceful champions for immigration forces in the GOP – Arizona Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl – already have made clear that they won’t support any compromise that doesn’t include a temporary worker program.

That spells doom for the immigration reform movement because Democratic leaders are going to need at least a handful of Republican votes in the Senate – and could use more in the House – to offset the all-but-certain defections of Blue Dogs who won’t go along with what they consider amnesty for illegal immigrants.

So now it’s time for the advocates of comprehensive immigration reform to think strategically, stop playing politics and concentrate on getting results.

They need to rustle up as much support as possible from Republicans and keep guest workers in the mix if it helps them do so.

They need to look for a middle-of-the-road approach that gives the undocumented a chance to legalize their status but stresses the concept of accountability by requiring those who travel that road to acknowledge that they did wrong and attempt to make amends.

The reformers now need to show they hear the concerns on the other side and stop challenging the motives of those who disagree with them.

Not least of all, the reformers need to take advantage of a powerful yet underutilized weapon: personal empathy.

Many Americans have members of their family tree who arrived on these shores only to experience mistreatment or marginalization because they threatened those already here, either by taking jobs or changing the culture.

And it is those Americans who are just waiting to be converted to the cause of immigration reform, provided their concerns are addressed.

As the party in power, it is up to Democrats to begin the conversion. But first, they have to start the conversation.

Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a columnist and editorial board member of The San Diego Union-Tribune. E-mail: ruben.navarrette@uniontrib.com

Has Giffords taken equestrians for a ride?

I am very concerned and upset that the passing of important equine legislation isn’t happening quickly.

Horses are transported in horrible, deplorable conditions across the border to Mexico and Canada for slaughter, and Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is not co-sponsoring these bills even though we people and our horses campaigned for her re-election. Why?

Ms. Giffords is a sponsor or co-sponsor to HR322 to declare July 25 as National Day of the Cowboy.

How can she honor the cowboy and sell the horse he rode in on down the road to the slaughter plant?

E.J. Jones

Phoenix

Trial & error: Mockery needs work on attitude

Poor Corey Wlodarczyk (May 7 letter, “Mock Trial member judges UA to be unfit“).

His letter reveals an attitude that spells future disaster for this poor, disillusioned graduate.

Have you noticed what happens to lousy neighbors as they move from area to area? They’re still lousy neighbors.

Corey needs to move on, but an attitude adjustment would be beneficial. Could poor grades produce such hatred? I wonder.

Don’t let the door hit your fanny, as you slink away into the night, Corey!

Jerry Pulliam

Sahuarita

Sorry, but Dupnik does not owe any apologies

I am a lifelong Republican, but I have voted for Sheriff Clarence Dupnik for as long as I can remember because he does the job he was elected to do.

He does not owe anyone an apology!

While I disagree with his policy of enforcement in the illegal immigrant problem, I understand the constraints of budgets and personnel.

Still, I believe every law enforcement officer has the duty to enforce every law of our country, be it federal, state, county or city.

After all, he surely would not hesitate to apprehend a suspected terrorist planning to blow up the state Capitol.

Nevertheless, he does a fine job, and I applaud him! I repeat: Sheriff Dupnik does not owe anyone an apology!

D. Versluis

retired

Food tax will hit all, not just folks already down

The state, county and city seem to be determined to balance budgets by raising taxes: the state with higher income taxes, the county with higher property taxes, the city of Tucson with property taxes (renters tax), taxes on cable, trash pickup, water, electric and more.

Two to three years ago, renters began renting houses and now they are buying houses because it’s cheaper than renting an apartment.

Apartment complexes were feeling the pinch before the economy went south. Now the city wants to hit the working poor, disabled and people on Section 8 with more taxes.

If the city would begin saving enough money to last six to nine months with no income from the federal government or the state, we would be in much better shape today.

Perhaps this policy as well as a half-cent tax on food (excluding the disabled, elderly and Section 8 residents) would help balance the budget.

We may even be able to eliminate most of the other taxes under consideration.

Dwayne Giorsetti

laborer

Pass the buck . . . or simply print more

Simply priceless! Why should I be in insufferable debt when my children and grandchildren can suffer for me?

The right economic track of repressing investment and trade can easily be made up for by printing more money!

Why hasn’t someone thought of this before?

Shorty Griswold

May designated month for ALS awareness

ALS. Those three letters never held much significance for me until three years ago, when I learned I have amyotrophic lateral sclerosis – Lou Gehrig’s disease.

For those who don’t know, ALS is a ruthless killer. It gradually paralyzes all voluntary muscles, including those used for walking, talking, swallowing and breathing.

There’s no cure, and most people survive only about three to five years.

One thing about receiving such a terrible diagnosis: You learn who you can count on. My family and friends are absolutely amazing.

In addition, the Muscular Dystrophy Association provides invaluable help.

Besides sponsoring a worldwide program of ALS research, MDA provides me with medical care at the MDA ALS Clinic at University Physicians Healthcare Hospital at Kino Campus in Tucson.

MDA has helped me obtain expensive assistive equipment and its support groups and online communities offer advice and hope.

May is National ALS Awareness Month, and in this area, MDA will sponsor an ALS seminar May 14 at the Viscount Suite Hotel.

ALS attacks healthy adults in the prime of life – people such as me. This May, please help conquer this disease by supporting MDA.

Call (800) 572-1717 or visit www.als-mda.org to learn more.

Thank you, southern Arizona, for all your support.

George Borboa

Soccer fans wearing protective masks as a precaution against swine flu watch a Mexican soccer league match in Mexico City on Sunday.

Sometime in April, a big uproar over swine flu or H1N1, as it has now become known, spread through the media like wildfire.

The media’s way of informing the public of this flu’s second appearance, however, has been by way of overly sensationalized reports.

Since then, a letter has been sent home from my high school principal, debates of this perceived pandemic have circulated through my classes and on a national scale, schools have been shut down temporarily and many are nervous about the situation.

I am beginning to think the hyped up stories of this flu are getting everyone sick from stress more than the actual flu.

The letter sent home from my school stated precautionary measures to be taken to prevent getting the flu: Wash your hands, cover your nose and mouth and avoid close contact that can spread the virus.

But with so few cases in the United States – and that death has come only to those whose immune systems are weak – it seems unlikely this flu will make it very far.

I also know many friends who, when not feeling well, have decided not to take a trip to the nurse’s office due to the fear of being thought to have swine flu.

My only coherent thought after learning this was “wow.”

And this has not been the first time the media have overplayed a sickness.

Take the mad cow disease, for example. The uproar about this ailment was particularly big.

About 4.4 million cows were slaughtered during the eradication program, yet mad cow proved fatal to fewer than 50 people in the United States.

Let’s take a trip down memory lane to the time in each of our lives when we were told the story of Chicken Little.

This was the fable of a chicken that vehemently believed the sky was falling because an acorn had landed on its head.

Through this story, Chicken Little is on an adventure to find the king and tell him about his discovery and fear.

On this adventure, he meets many gullible animals who also begin to believe the sky is falling. The moral presented by this story is: Do not believe everything you are told.

So should we believe everything the media feed us when they have proved on more than one occasion that they have the tendency to create the news rather than just report it?

Or should we take it upon ourselves to gather the facts? The choice is up to you.

Ashlee Maez is a junior at Tucson High Magnet School. E-mail: kailachi@yahoo.com

Article wrong about mortgage brokers

A May 8 article (“Homebuyers sue KB Home, Countrywide, allege rigging to inflate prices“) contained two glaring misrepresentations.

“Homebuilders sold their homes for higher prices, the banks profited from making and selling loans and the mortgage brokers benefited from earning more commissions.” This is mostly accurate, but the phrase about mortgage brokers is not.

Countrywide and KB’s agreement precluded outside lenders. Mortgage brokers work with a variety of lenders to keep the market competitive.

KB and Countrywide prevented mortgage brokers from participating in the loan process and practically required borrowers to use Countrywide as the exclusive lender.

Also misleading is the revelation that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac adopted new standards for appraisals. This article illustrates the danger of the relationship between a lender such as Countrywide and its appraisal management company (AMC), such as Landsafe.

The standards adopted in the Home Valuation Code of Conduct between New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac doesn’t just allow this type of lender/AMC relationship. It virtually mandates it.

As of May 1, Bank of America, which acquired Countrywide and Landsafe, will only use appraisals by Landsafe. They are not alone. Most major banks only accept appraisals from their selected AMC.

Cuomo’s investigation results have never been released, but the impact of HVCC is to encourage the type of relationship that has led to the lawsuit.

Tom Heath

Government affairs chairman, Arizona Mortgage Lenders Association

board member, Arizona Association of Mortgage Brokers

Democrats responsible for current problems

Obama is just cleaning up what the last administration did when they deregulated the financial firms? Of such statements are fairy tales made.

The previous administration tried to regulate financial institutions. It was the members of the current majority who blocked any attempts to do so.

Obama and company are responsible for this mess, no matter how much they try to shift the blame. I am surprised people think the Bush administration caused the recession.

I lay the blame squarely on Barney Franks, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi and the rest of their ilk. You want me to support Obama? To do what?

Raise taxes? His party members are experts at squeezing more money out of us.

Tell the rest of the world we are evil? He has done that.

Bow to people who want us dead? He’s done that.

Build a smart, cost-lowering universal health system? His own party says that won’t work.

Homeland Security? Doesn’t his administration want to bring the terrorists here?

And of course this high-tech electronic fence will be going up, so we can count the illegal immigrants and drug smugglers instead of catching them.

Come to think of it, our ex-governor, by her own words, doesn’t even know which direction to look for terrorists.

Obama was an expert at tearing down this country before, and it’s all better now? It’s not.

Expecting me to support him is about as likely as my believing that a rabbit paints eggs and delivers them in a basket every Easter.

John F. Sukey

retired military

UA student missed point about firearms

In a May 4 letter (“Student shoots down letting guns on campus“), University of Arizona student MariaElena Williams slightly oversimplified the controversy over allowing firearms on college campuses.

She assumes that if firearms were allowed, all students would have the legal right to carry a concealed firearm. This is incorrect.

The bill would allow only those people with concealed weapons permits to carry a firearm on college campuses.

This is a huge difference.

A concealed weapon permit can be obtained only by a person with no criminal history who is at least 21 and who attends a training class and passes a marksmanship accuracy test.

Only a small percentage of college students would be legally allowed to carry a concealed weapon on campus, and they would have formal training.

Every single one of them would be a deterrent to the person who comes to the campus with the intent of harming students. Why do you think so many schools are targeted by maniacs? It’s because students are defenseless.

The arguments against allowing legally concealed weapons on college campuses sound exactly like the hysteria that arose when Florida lawmakers first addressed whether to allow concealed weapons permits.

“There’ll be blood running in the streets. There’ll be gunfights on every corner. There’ll be shootouts over parking spaces.” There was none of that.

Less than one-tenth of 1 percent of all concealed weapon permit holders have had their permits revoked for criminal behavior. And the majority of those had nothing to do with firearms.

The vast majority of individuals who go to the trouble of obtaining the permit to carry a concealed weapon are more law-abiding than the average citizen. The people who go to schools to kill students don’t bother with minor details like laws. Have more faith in your fellow students.

Pat McGraw

Picture, if you will: A 17-year-old girl in a pharmacy the morning after, not a little horrified by her current dilemma.

Whatever transpired the night before – carelessness with a boyfriend, date rape, stranger rape – she now finds herself in a race against time to keep from getting pregnant.

“Plan B, Plan B,” she tells herself, scanning the shelves, remembering that this high-dose birth control can effectively block a pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of sexual intercourse (although it’s most effective within 24 hours).

Nearly all major industrialized nations have approved Plan B without restrictions for many years, recognizing its efficacy in preventing unwanted pregnancies.

Now, thanks to Tummino v. Torti, a recent judgment from a U.S. District Court, the day will soon be here when 17-year-olds won’t have to get a time-wasting prescription for this perfectly safe contraceptive, once erroneously tagged as an abortifacient.

Gone are the years of stonewalling and outright lies used by the Bush administration about the drug to turn the FDA from a science-based to faith-based arm of the government.

The Tummino v. Torti judgment exposes many “arbitrary and capricious” acts masquerading as medical due diligence. With pressure from the White House, the FDA had stalled confirmation of Plan B’s over-the-counter status for years citing bogus safety concerns.

One particularly egregious tactic was when the administration claimed the OTC-switch advisory committee lacked a “balance of opinion.”

I guess a cadre of medical and science professionals adept at research and clinical trials was a little too uniform.

Eventually, “Right to Life” ideologues with far less experience were tossed into the mix.

Still, science won out, and in 2003 the FDA’s Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee voted 23-4 in favor of eliminating age restrictions on procurement of Plan B.

That should have been the end of a long, hard fight, right? Wrong. The FDA rejected this advice – the only OTC-switch recommendation it had rejected in 10 years.

By approving the lowering of age restrictions on Plan B, the court simply recognizes that 17-year-olds with the wherewithal to connect a reckless night with preventive measures deserve our support.

What do they not deserve, even if their judgment often falls short? A bunch of political kowtowing dressed up to look like best-practice medicine.

Andrea Sarvady (w2wcolumn@gmail.com) is a writer and educator specializing in counseling and a married mother of three.

———

Opposing view

Shaunti Feldhahn: Bad ruling undermines parents

Picture, if you will, that if you repeat a falsehood often enough, people will actually believe it.

Andrea perpetuates the “politics prevented Plan B” myth repeated in loaded news stories. Since when did news reporters stop fact-checking? Silly question, I know.

The 2003 Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee, stacked with leftover Clinton appointees, was the one putting politics over science.

The FDA must be sure a drug is both effective and safe for its proposed usage, and Plan B has never been proved safe for over-the-counter use – especially for minors.

Plan B is the same drug as the regular birth control pill – which requires a prescription – but it’s 25 times stronger.

Since medical reasons, such as avoiding blood clots, require taking the lower-dose pill only under a doctor’s care, Bush officials were right to overturn the advisory committee’s blithe, unprecedented assurance that the turbo version would be fine without one, thank you.

It was the only such case in 10 years because it was the most absurd, unscientific decision in 10 years.

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, testified at that Advisory Committee meeting and explains that “there are activists and advocates for the drug on the committee,” not just the impartial scientists, as Andrea believes.

Today, conservative warnings about Plan B have come to pass, and OTC nations like the United Kingdom. have seen the inevitable consequences: Women taking it 40 times in a row, schools giving it to 11-year-olds like candy, and health officials warning of serious health complications such as infertility.

U.S. District Judge Edward Korman ignored all that, relying on incorrect information instead. (Maybe he’s been reading the news, too.)

“His decision said Plan B would be 89 percent effective and decrease abortions – the same thing advocates originally said to get it OTC,” Wright said.

“Yet even prominent advocates of Plan B and medical journals now say it does not reduce pregnancies and abortions.”

Parents should be furious with a judge undermining their oversight and their girls’ safety based on a myth.

“Teenagers,” Wright said, “still need a parental signature for tanning beds and field trips, but not to get a high-dose hormone drug, with serious side effects.”

That is politics, not best-practice medicine.

Shaunti Feldhahn (scfeldhahn@yahoo.com) is a conservative Christian author and speaker, and married mother of two.

———

Opposing view

Andrea Sarvady: Court’s Plan B decision was right

The state budget for next year that passed out of the House Appropriations Committee last week illustrates that a nominally balanced budget can be achieved without a tax increase.

Whether that is the best course of action is a very difficult question.

As always, some historical perspective is valuable.

After the last recession, state revenues stabilized in 2003. State general fund spending that year was $6.6 billion.

State spending peaked in 2008, at $10.5 billion, or a 60 percent increase in just five years.

The House budget for next year comes in at $9.3 billion. So, that’s a real decrease of more than 11 percent in two years.

But since 2003, it still represents an increase of 41 percent. That’s more than 5 percent a year.

The proposed budget cuts are not small, and certainly not painless. But the proposed end result hardly amounts to a barbaric return to poor houses and one-room schoolhouses.

Instead, the House budget reduces state spending to around where it would have been if it had grown more prudently during the days of plenty.

On the other hand, state general fund revenues are expected to fall $2 billion short of funding that spending. The House budget makes up for that by using federal stimulus money and stealing money from other accounts.

Given that there is still a $2 billion shortfall even after reducing spending growth to a modest level indicates that profligate spending during the Napolitano era is hardly the exclusive culprit.

Nor would the problem not exist if tax cuts had been eschewed during the days of plenty. If state income and state property tax rates were as they were in 2003, they might produce an additional $600 million in revenue, still leaving a $1.4 billion hole.

Simply put, state revenues have run into a severe cyclical downturn that exceeds everyone’s blame game. The conventional wisdom from all sides of the ideological spectrum is pretty much useless and pointless in confronting this situation.

So, what to do?

The House budget is based upon the point of view that the worst thing to do in the current circumstances would be to increase taxes. There is considerable merit to that position. Raising taxes in an economic downturn is a monumentally bad idea.

The House budget illustrates that avoiding a tax increase is doable.

It steals $265 million from cities and counties, which is monstrously unfair and shouldn’t be done. They have their own budget woes and are handling them much more responsibly than is the state.

The other maneuver getting some gas, using excess school district balances, is completely justified. These are funds that should have been used to reduce property taxes and that the districts cannot legally spend anyway.

The money taken from the cities and counties could be replaced, including by deferring some payments if necessary. So, the state could get through next year OK without increasing taxes or borrowing.

But, given a structural deficit of $2 billion, the very same problem faces the state in 2011, with considerably less federal stimulus money to cover it up.

Gov. Jan Brewer says the Legislature should bite the bullet this year and really fix the problem with a tax increase. She’s being less than candid about how much of a tax increase that would take and for how long. But hers is also a position with considerable merit.

The problem – the imbalance between spending and revenues – isn’t going away, and the House budget doesn’t do much to shrink it.

If the Legislature bit the bullet this year, it would make for a much more stable environment for state government and politics.

There are no rights and wrongs here. There are no responsible vs. irresponsible positions. Ideological conventions don’t get you to an end game.

You kick the state government problem down the road until what you hope is a more propitious time to deal with it. Or you fix state government’s problem at a very bad time for the state’s private sector economy.

I’d kick the problem down the road. But I’m not going to reproach those who reach a different conclusion.

Robert Robb, an Arizona Republic columnist, writes about public policy and politics in Arizona. E-mail: robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com