From the political notebook: • Gov. Janet Napolitano’s governing style has served her well. However, it sometimes does not serve the state well, as was the case with the employer sanctions bill.

As a matter of policy, Napolitano refuses to comment on legislation as it is being developed. For stuff Republicans are concocting to send her way, that policy makes some sense. Why get caught up in a difficult political situation until Republicans prove they can pull it off?

However, the employer sanctions legislation was supposedly one of Napolitano’s priorities. In her 2006 State of the State message, she made cracking down on employers who hire illegal workers part of her plan to reduce illegal immigration.

If it was part of her plan, you’d expect Napolitano to offer some specifics as to what she proposes. She not only didn’t do that, she also refused to offer opinions or guidance on bills the Legislature was crafting on its own on the subject.

Napolitano last year vetoed an employer sanctions bill on the grounds that it wasn’t tough enough. She signed this year’s, but said it was flawed and proposed a special session to fix it.

I think she’s overstating the potential problems with the bill. But the time to raise these issues is as the bill is being developed, not after it is signed.

• The bill will force Arizona businesses to move toward a more legal work force. This isn’t really because of the enforcement provisions in the bill, but because of the requirement that the work eligibility of all new hires be verified electronically through a federal program. That should cut off the access of illegal workers to the formal economy for new jobs.

Whether the transition to a more legal work force is smooth or rough depends on the county attorneys, who have the primary responsibility to enforce the new bill.

If the bill is enforced as written, only employers acting in bad faith, purposely conniving to secure illegal workers, should be caught up in it.

The real threat is trophy- hunting by county attorneys, stretching the true parameters of the bill to make a political splash on the illegal immigration issue. Which means that Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas is the guy to watch.

• John McCain’s problem isn’t really the amount of money he has raised. He scooped in $24 million, which would have put him behind Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, both of whom have raised in the low $30 millions, but in the game.

The real problem is that he has only $2 million of it left.

McCain tried to run a front-runner’s grind-it-out campaign – be everywhere, compete everywhere, try to win everywhere.

McCain will now try to run an insurgent’s campaign, attempting to use an early victory in New Hampshire or South Carolina to slingshot him to victory. The calendar, however, is stacked against such a campaign, with so many big-state primaries being held Feb. 5 or earlier.

McCain’s winning strategy, if there was one, was probably a survivor’s campaign of attrition. He’s not the base’s first choice. However, he should be acceptable on the social issues and is the most believable opponent of the Washington spending culture in the field.

But a survivor’s strategy requires husbanding resources, which McCain did not do.

Read another column by Robert Robb: The Supreme Court, diversity in schools, and individual rights.

Robert Robb is a columnist for The Arizona Republic.

High court’s 5-4 rulings will far outlast Bush
The failures of the Bush administration domestically and in foreign policy are too numerous to count, but in one area, Bush has been frighteningly successful.

His Supreme Court picks have tilted the court radically to the right.

The five ultraconservative justices, rather than protect our rights and liberties, have become the facilitators of discrimination and the protectors of the politically powerful and monied interests.

By a 5-4 vote, the court has gutted campaign finance laws, giving corporations and money more control of our election process.

Justices for the first time upheld abortion restrictions without considering the health of the woman.

They dealt a staggering blow to desegregation and the goal of diversity in education.

They made it harder for women to sue for equal pay; they blurred the separation of church and state by allowing federal money to go to faith-based programs; and they limited free speech of students while equating corporate money with the right of political free speech.

In this court session, business and corporate interests prevailed in every decision over people, the environment and the health of our democracy.

Long after we are thankfully done with Bush’s presidency, we will be burdened with the horrendous consequences of this court’s 5-4 rulings.

JOAN SAFIER

retired teacher

Legislature graded on education matters
The Arizona Business & Education Coalition was eager to see the Legislature enact key recommendations from the P-20 Council.

Instead, this was a session of mostly lost opportunity.

The ability to link teacher and student identifiers – both confidential – is key for a high quality student data system.

Arizona K-12 teachers and students already have those identifiers. Legislation would have enabled connecting the two, thus aiding staff development and giving universities a tool to better assess their teacher preparation programs.

It’s puzzling that the session would close without new funding for English language learners in spite of a court order.

These learners make up 9.5 percent of students nationally but 16.5 percent in Arizona.

This growing population will be a vital part of our economy, and it is troubling that lawmakers gave their education short shrift.

It’s also sad that legislators would not fund international schools, describing them as “un-American.”

Our students could have learned and applied second and third languages and become fluent in global communications.

Intel, Medtronic, Motorola, Avnet and many local and national superemployers work multinationally and need Arizona youngsters to be prepared for their work forces.

Moreover, Arizona’s economy relies on workers from around the world who view life through their own cultural lenses.

There was some good news, with legislation to reward high school students who graduate early with scholarships for postsecondary education.

Congratulations to freshman Rep. Andy Tobin for his persistence in moving this to the governor’s desk!

The Legislature also established study committees on school construction and charter school financing and grant programs for math, science and technical education, suggesting the 2008 session will be an active one for education.

SUSAN CARLSON

executive director

Arizona Business & Education Coalition

Docs who listen make all the difference
The July 2 headline “4 years of constant pain exposed as cancer” caught my eye, since I had surgery June 28 to remove a lymphoma “the size of an orange” (per my surgeon) that I had been complaining about to doctors for the past four years.

After being told there were no broken bones or anything else discernable via X-ray, I was almost beginning to believe it was all in my head.

But the pain was real, the swelling of my foot was real, and the pain I experienced while walking was very real.

Finally, a doctor listened and ordered an MRI, which revealed the tumor.

I am recuperating now and wish Lauren Fletcher a successful surgery without any amputation and for a quick recovery.

I’m glad she didn’t give up. After all, we know our bodies and how they act and react. I only wish there were more doctors who really listen.

VALERIE GOLEMBIEWSKI

Equal rights ignored when it tilts other way
Matthew Leigh (July 2 letter, “Title IX now neglects male collegiate ranks”) is right on the money.

Equality is very important, but when the pendulum swings the other way, all those gender equity people disappear.

When Title IX was first enforced, male students lost programs, and no one seemed to care.

I have always felt, and Title IX is just another case to prove my point, that “equality” is a word used to fill quotas, be it gender, race or whatever.

As soon as the imbalance starts to swing the other way, those who demanded the equal status for all become blind to the situation, and it is usually the male population that suffers.

Once again, the words “equal rights” are used as a disguise to gain special rights and ignore any inequalities that result.

NATE BAKER

Read more letters to the Editor

‘She is a freshman. She has no power or authority over anything.’

The story: The first six months of Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ first term in Congress is analyzed.

Your take: She’s let off easy by the Citizen’s online community. Stories about Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl and Rep. Raúl Grijalva inevitably bring out readers’ rhetorical extremism: “liar,” “traitor,” “lying traitor,” “traitorous liar,” etc.

But people haven’t gotten that worked up over Giffords, who is viewed as having her heart in the right place (“She is willing to listen to her constituents,” Michael C. says) while being a bit of a lightweight. Her introduction of a bill to increase solar power research was “just fine for someone who wants to play it safe and at the same time claim that she is doing something,” says Larry P. “Giffords is the dummy, and (House Speaker Nancy) Pelosi is pulling the strings,” accuses James W., who, in an aside, describes Pelosi as “the most dangerous woman in the world.”

The border: sneers and prayers
The story: Eight suspected illegal immigrants die crossing the desert during the past week.

Your take: As is unfortunately often the case, several people dismiss those unfortunate souls as “stupid” and “morons.” Vivian is a tad kinder. “Dear Lord, have mercy on the poor who desperately crowd at our gates, seeking only the workman’s wages that might feed their families for one more day. . . .” And Terry O. warns that what goes around, comes around: “Some of these pinheads reveling in the deaths of other humans better pray there is no such thing as karma.”

MOST-VIEWED LOCAL NEWS STORIES
For Saturday, July 7
ONE Lightning ignites brush fires in Catalina, Rincon mountains.

TWO Migrants carry body to border agents; week’s death toll is nine.

THREE Mediator called in to work with staff at Cholla High School.

Fond remembrances of ex-Mayor Corbett
Arizona lost a leader and friend last week with the passing of former Mayor James “Jim” Corbett.

Others have more standing to address his contributions as an elected official, as I was only 10 when we became friends of sorts.

The mayor could tell I liked politics and took me and his son, Bill, to campaign events.

He was always patient, explaining how things worked and why service was so important.

His kindness and interest in me led to my own four decades in politics and ultimately a senior staff position in the White House.

I have seen a lot of big political and historical events in my life, but none is as indelible in my mind as the night of Corbett’s election as mayor.

He made me feel as if I had won something and been a part of something important. That was one of his many gifts as a person – and I was honored to have been one of the many touched by his attention.

My prayers and affection go to his wonderful family, whom I hold in such high regard.

FRED DUVAL

DuVal and Associates

Phoenix

Cheney: The better we know him, the worse
Thanks for Michael A. Chihak’s truly courageous column about Cheney (July 1, “Absolute power corrupts . . . Cheney”).

I fully agree with the Wednesday letter by John P. Flaherty (“Do those afraid of Cheney include Bush?”), who also applauded you.

George Schultz, the behind-the-scene representative of giant multinational corporations then and now, first “suggested” to the trusting Ronald Reagan that he appoint certain young men Schultz favored to important roles in Reagan’s administration, especially Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle.

Left out of your revealing comments about Cheney was his totally incompetent (or worse) actions on 9/11, as recently confirmed by Norman Mineta, who was with Cheney in the bunker during the attack on the Pentagon.

The 9/11 (Whitewash) Commission, appointed by Bush, ignored Mineta’s startling testimony, as it ignored reports of the internal demolition of World Trade 7, the third World Trade Center to collapse on 9/11.

“Frontline” on PBS later also ignored Mineta’s testimony.

DICK FOJUT

Why blindly go? Security dictates it
After hearing a local media report on the recent shooting incident at Park Place mall, I wasn’t surprised to hear that merchants, patrons or both were asking “why?” when ordered to evacuate the area.

Having worked years in the security industry and retail environments, I’ve witnessed this dozens of times and am still amazed that anyone would display such incompetence.

In the immediate aftermath of a shooting, a security or law enforcement officer has dozens of tasks that need to be accomplished immediately in the interest of saving lives.

Why on earth would anyone think they are entitled to some kind of explanation from the authority figure on the scene? When instructed to evacuate by a uniformed security or police officer, leave!

DAVID HALL

Recycling program held promise of no fee
The Tuesday letter by R. Woolard (“Folks on fixed income can’t afford more fees”) was close to the facts and well done.

Several years ago, city administrators promoted the recycling program with the promise this would eliminate the need for a garbage fee. And so it was done.

City residents took the time to painfully and faithfully separate papers, glass, plastics and other recyclables from garbage and helped the city realize a handsome profit from this effort.

Fast forward to 2004, when the city decided everyone had forgotten that promise and instituted the $14 garbage fee.

The politicians figure most people are dumb or have short memories.

The garbage fee is already paid for with recycling income. How do you explain this, Mr. Mayor?

M. SIVILLI

Eating competitions wasteful, gluttonous
The annual Fourth of July hot dog-eating contest is sickening and downright obscene.

What does this Independence Day “celebration,” given prominent attention by the national media, say about American values?

Yes, having fun on the Fourth is a great American tradition. But this spectacle certainly is not an example of American compassion for the millions of people who go to bed hungry every night – including Americans who can’t afford the price of tickets to baseball games.

Eating competitions are blatant celebrations of waste and gluttony. Food deserves respect. It is supplied by the blessings of this Earth and the hard work of millions of people.

Food should be taken into our bodies for nourishment and deserves to be eaten with appreciation and gratitude.

The hot dog-eating contest does not deserve the ballyhoo it receives by the national media. As a patriotic American of 72 years, a child during the Great Depression, I am ashamed and outraged!

LOIS H. GEORGE-SMITH

Read more letters to the Editor

Now that the Democrats are raking in more campaign dough than are the Republicans, it will be interesting to see if the media demonize the role of money in politics as they have in past elections when the GOP was winning the contributions race.

The storyline used to be that money corrupts politics, giving big donors too much influence over who ultimately gets elected.

But with Democrats raising $3 for every $2 that went to Republicans in the past federal campaign reporting cycle, the press stories have taken on a new slant.

Suddenly, Sen. Barack Obama is a man of the people for having raised $32.5 million, while Sen. John McCain is a loser because he took in only $11 million.

The Washington Post reported that Obama’s 258,000 donors since January represent more than the combined donor base of the major Republican candidates, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and McCain.

But the comparison is meaningless because Obama isn’t running against any of these guys – at least not yet.

This media about-face is most visible in coverage of the McCain campaign. News stories abounded this week about McCain’s money troubles.

What once the media treated as a virtue – namely, McCain’s reluctance to hustle for campaign cash – has suddenly been turned into his Achilles’ heel.

There’s no question money is an important indicator of a candidate’s viability; that’s why the presidential money race is often called the first primary.

But money isn’t everything. Most candidates spend too much money hiring professional campaign consultants, who demand hefty fees and rarely produce what’s promised.

Candidates win or lose based on whether they resonate with the voters. George W. Bush won the past election because Americans were concerned about terrorism. Voters believed they would be safer with Bush rather than John Kerry in the White House.

The one candidate who might actually turn his money problems to his advantage is McCain. He’s always run better as an outsider and an underdog.

By necessity, he’s now had to fire many of the consultants that surrounded him when he was the front-runner. But this may allow him to be himself – iconoclastic, sometimes cantankerous, but always honest.

And honesty pays in politics. People will vote for someone they may not entirely agree with before they’ll vote for someone they think will say anything to please them.

In the final analysis, the 2008 election won’t be decided by money, no matter who’s raising it faster.

The war in Iraq, the fear of terrorism here at home, the economy, frustration with both parties’ ability to get anything done, a loss of confidence in government, and other issues as yet unforeseen will determine what drives voters to the polls.

And when they cast their votes, most people will be making a judgment call that the candidate they’re voting for has the character and skills to make a difference, not which candidate amassed the most money.

Linda Chavez is chair of the Center for Equal Opportunity. E-mail: lchavez@ceousa.org

‘Anna” was counting down to the Fourth of July one day at a time. One hour at a time. One meeting at a time.

For her, Independence Day 2007 would mark one year of freedom from a decade of drugs, alcohol and homeless, hopeless living.

Tattooed, pierced and dressed all in black with “Wild Child” embroidered across the cheeks of her sweat pants, the sassy redhead talked openly about her addictions.

“Alcohol was around a lot when I was growing up. I started nippin’ sips at about age 8 or 9,” recalls Anna, not her real name.

(Although the Tucson Citizen’s policy is to identify every subject, an exception is being made to protect this woman’s anonymity.)

Drugs and drinking helped her escape a home environment that was “too much to deal with.”

She hit the streets at age 16, traveling the country by hopping trains.

“There were a lot of ‘free’ drugs, especially for females.” She survived by stealing, panhandling and committing check and credit card scams.

“I was callous, angry. Like watching people go by and resenting the hell out of them because I didn’t know how to even start trying to get their kind of life, and there they were, taking what they had for granted.”

At age 17, she started selling drugs. By 20, she had overdosed on cocaine three times and nearly lost her life to heroin. “Yep, I flat-lined.”

It scared her enough to stop using needles but not enough to stop using drugs.

Her concern was that even if she could find a way into rehab, then what?

“People would say, ‘Get a job. Help yourself.’ ” But with no address and few resources, there seemed to be no way.

Until the night of July 4, 2006, when she walked to a detox center after being beat up by “friends.”

That night was the start of her fight for a new life.

Jan. 27, she married a man she had met in rehab.

“It’s risky, moving right into a new relationship,” she said. “It’s exactly what the counselors say you shouldn’t do.”

Months later, at age 26, she had her first job, her first checking account and her first apartment.

With a determined grin, she described how she was still getting used to it all.

“I use my Visa, and I feel like a criminal. When I paid with plastic before now, you bet I was committing a felony.”

Setting her sandwich down on a grungy cement table between cigarettes, she countered the raised eyebrows around her with “It’s OK. I used to eat out of a dumpster.”

Anna described her constant battle against the threat and temptation of relapse.

“Today, God willing, there is nothing I can’t make worse by using or drinking. I see the change in people who go back. The way they become, it scares the (crap) out of me.”

What was keeping her going? A new sense of self-worth. Her family. Her fear. The rehab counselors and staff, whom she credited with helping to save her life.

For those who have not fought addiction, it is difficult to understand the strength and commitment required to begin – let alone to sustain – recovery.

Most people don’t even stick to a diet.

Last week, she showed up at 4:30 a.m. at her mother’s house, having relapsed but determined to start her rehab all over again.

One day at a time. One hour at a time. One meeting at a time.

Native Tucsonan Robin (Calkins) Gwozdz is a registered nurse and “Mom” to many in addition to her own two children. E-mail: robinsmytucson@yahoo.com

———

FOR MORE INFORMATION
A wide range of drug and alcohol rehabilitation resources is available in Tucson.

Details are available through the Information and Referral Service, 3130 N. Dodge Blvd., Tucson, AZ 85716.

Call 881-1794 or, from outside Tucson, 800-362-3474, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. weekdays or 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. weekends.

The American cemetery at Colleville-sur-Mer in western France.

Last year, I visited Normandy, France, for the first time. At the American cemetery, there is not an 'R' (for Republican) or 'D' (for Democrat) on grave markers of those who died on D-Day.

WASHINGTON, Indiana – It’s a long way from Washington, D.C., to Washington, Ind., where my father was born a century ago next January and where I am attending a Thomas family reunion.

On the drive from Indianapolis, one passes towns that could fill a Norman Rockwell album. My favorite is named Freedom because, though the town has only a single flashing caution light, it displays many flags. If I don’t slow down, I will miss both.

Driving past miles of cornfields, listening to local radio stations that still play music, not syndicated political talk, and carry commercials for farm equipment and feed, I ponder what it means to be patriotic and to love America.

Last week, senator and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said that religion is not the exclusive property of conservative Christians. He is right. Neither is patriotism a trademark of the Republican Party.

As with religion, some on the right have used patriotism, which should be a unifying theme, to divide Americans. My liberal friends love America as much as I do. They might disagree on some, or all, of my political and religious beliefs, but that does not make them less in love with America, much less un-American.

Many political and religious liberals have family members who have served or are serving their country in war and in peace. These have spilled their blood and given their lives to guarantee our freedom to disagree and still live together.

Here in this Washington, I am told stories of how our family stuck together, neighbor helping neighbor, during the Great Depression; of a grand- father who was out of work at the B&O Railroad for two years; of employees with more seniority than he who took a day off so he could work and earn some money; of one of his sons (my uncle) who had a paper route and would bring home eggs from subscribers.

Few here judged their neighbor’s worth based on his or her political or religious beliefs. They helped each other. This was the real America.

When the “boys” went off to war, they had total support from family, friends, neighbors and all they left behind and for whose benefit they fought.

When those who survived came home, some voted for Democrats and some for Republicans, but no one questioned their patriotism because of their electoral or religious choices.

Last year, I visited Normandy, France, for the first time. At the American cemetery, there is not an “R” (for Republican) or “D” (for Democrat) on grave markers of those who died on D-Day.

The 2008 presidential candidates and their supporters should be asked not to question the patriotism of opponents. Surely, most of us prefer debate and discussion of the issues that confront us to a litmus test about whose blood runs more red, white and blue.

Leaders of many nations, including America, have used patriotism to persuade citizens of policies that are not always in their country’s best interests.

Hitler’s deputy, Herman Goering, cynically observed: “Naturally the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.

“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

And still we love America for opportunities that do not exist in such proportion in any other nation.

A person who criticizes a particular policy does not necessarily love his country less than one who supports that policy. G.K. Chesterton said, ” ‘My country, right or wrong’ is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying ‘My mother, drunk or sober.’ ”

After 231 years, we still try to make wrong into right and cheer the right and the nation that makes change possible when we succeed.

That’s patriotism.

Cal Thomas is an author and broadcast commentator. His e-mail address is calthomas@tribune.com.

PARIS HILTON flew to Hawaii after tripling the ratings of the Larry King show, where she gave the most boring interview in television history. It was a new low in journalism. She went blank every time Larry King asked her if she likes older men.

THE FBI has asked Congress for money to set up a National Security Branch Analysis Center. It would allow the agency to look at every American citizen’s income tax, phone and credit card records. The idea was first proposed 35 years ago in Richard Nixon’s “I Have a Dream” speech.

TEHERAN street protesters began burning fuel stations in anger over the Iranian government’s decision to ration gasoline. The protest got very little notice or television time in this country. U.S. news outlets chose to air interviews with parents of a kidnapped baby because showing burning gasoline would be too upsetting for Americans to bear.

PRESIDENT BUSH commuted the prison sentence of former White House aide Scooter Libby. It was a good idea for the president to commute. After six years of walking to work, he’s not using enough oil to maintain his membership in the Republican Party.

HILLARY CLINTON flew to Arkansas to headline a state Democratic Party dinner. She’s loved there for being a great sport. She toured the Oval Office replica in the Bill Clinton Library and looked under the desk just for old times’ sake.

The U.S. Army in 2000 was the finest fighting force the world had seen, capable of rapidly projecting America’s power around the world, respected by friends and allies and feared by adversaries.

Nevertheless, in the election campaign that fall, presidential candidate George Bush and running mate Dick Cheney painted the Army in starkly different terms.

They told the American people and the young men and women in uniform that our forces were overly stretched, performing “nation building” missions in Bosnia and Kosovo for which they were neither equipped nor trained.

They boldly told those in uniform that “help is on the way.”

The American people apparently bought those claims, a major reason the Republicans won the 2000 election.

Seven years later, in what shape does the Army find itself?

First, the pluses. Its “special operators” contributed to overthrowing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in 2001, and its conventional forces, reinforced by U.S. Marines and the British Army, achieved rapid success in overthrowing Iraq’s Saddam Hussein in 2003.

These major achievements were in keeping with the Army’s history of fighting and winning our nation’s wars.

Unfortunately, the major challenges in 2007 are well known.

The Taliban are returning to Afghanistan, and U.S. and NATO forces are fighting and dying there daily to bolster a still weak Afghan government.

The war in Iraq continues four years after Bush’s “mission accomplished” speech.

The Army and Marine Corps have suffered more than 3,300 killed in action and 25,000 wounded, many whose lives have been shattered.

Active-duty soldiers are on their second, third or fourth combat deployments, and thousands of National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers have been alerted to their units’ second deployments.

I personally know young officers with less than six years service already in their third deployment, this time for 15 months.

Even thousands of soldiers who have completed their contractural obligations to the Army, after multiple deployments, are being kept in uniform in a “stop-loss” program.

Young soldiers and their families are bearing these burdens alone, as most of the American people stand aside.

Sadly, the Army’s immediate future is no less dark than its present.

The Army’s most vital resource is its people, and its recruiting goals have been met marginally by lowering standards.

The number of high school graduates is down, the number of recruits with moral problems is up, and so is the number of those with health problems that previously would have precluded service.

The maximum age at enlistment is 42, and bonuses into the tens of thousands of dollars are necessary to attract many recruits.

At the same time, only the equipment in the forces in Afghanistan and Iraq is remotely ready for the full range of combat operations.

Much of the equipment of units in the U.S. is broken, sitting in Army depots awaiting repair, and those units cannot fully train for their next deployment.

This administration has maneuvered the Army, and the nation, into a situation in which it can neither “win” in Iraq nor respond quickly to a crisis in another part of the world in which America’s vital interests could be at stake.

These are the terrible, actual effects of Mr. Bush’s and Mr. Cheney’s “help is on the way.”

Nearly six years since 9/11 and the wars launched thereafter, they decided tax cuts and slavish commitment to former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s smaller and “lighter” force were more important than ensuring the young men and women in uniform have everything they need to win.

Much valuable time was lost preparing our forces for what Mr. Bush correctly described as a “long war” against those who want to destroy America.

Those in uniform deserve much, much better from their elected leaders, particularly those who claimed “help is on the way.”

John Bryant is a retired U.S. Army colonel living in Tucson.

It’s a heady experience being a panelist in a debate among presidential candidates, and doubly so when the panel happens to be made up entirely of journalists of color.

That’s not something you see every day. Not when minorities make up only 13.6 percent of the journalists working in America’s newsrooms, according to the most recent audit by the American Society of Newspaper Editors.

And not when political talk shows, especially the Beltway-centric Sunday shows, have no compunction about rushing into discussions of issues – even those that touch on race and ethnicity – usually without including the perspectives of nonwhite commentators.

So I was delighted when Tavis Smiley, with whom I co-hosted a radio show in Los Angeles more than a dozen years ago, invited me to join him, Michel Martin of NPR and DeWayne Wickham of USA TODAY for the first “All-American Presidential Forum” Thursday on PBS.

Firing questions and getting answers from eight Democratic candidates can burn up the clock.

Each of us had drafted three questions and then agreed on an order of priority. We got through two rounds of questions – on poverty, education, AIDS, criminal justice, taxes, the Katrina recovery – and Wickham had time for one more on Darfur.

Unfortunately, the one question I didn’t get to ask concerned immigration. It would have certainly been timely, given that earlier in the day the U.S. Senate effectively slammed the coffin shut on reform when a bipartisan compromise bill fell short of the votes necessary for closing debate.

In doing so, the Senate sent the message that on the tough issues that might offend people, they’ll hang out a sign that reads: “Gone fishing.”

My immigration question was a generic one about where we go from here and what the essential ingredient needs to be in any eventual reform of the system.

It’s a fair question. But it’s not the one I really wanted to ask. My preference would have been to be more provocative, playing off the fact that this was a black-brown forum. The question would have gone something like this:

“Ted Hayes, a black activist in Los Angeles, has often said that ‘illegal immigration is the greatest threat to black America since slavery.’ You also see community groups such as ‘Choose Black America’ likewise voicing concern that illegal immigration has helped displace African-American workers.

“What do you make of this aspect of the debate? And, if African-Americans are being pushed out of the economy by illegal immigrants, many of whom have less than a grade-school education and speak no English, what does that say – about illegal immigrants and the African-Americans they’re supposedly displacing?”

There’s no easy answer. But what it says to me is that America needs to do a better job of providing the native-born of all colors with opportunities – in both education and employment.

And it also says that U.S. natives need to make the most of the opportunities they’ve been given and stop blaming others for their troubles.

Frankly, any group that feels pushed out and pushed around by a cohort that often has nothing more than a grade-school education and speaks little or no English has bigger worries than securing the border.

As for the questions asked and the way they were answered by the candidates, the forum seemed to inadvertently reinforce the notion of minorities as victims – besieged by everything from poverty to outsourcing to higher rates of HIV infection.

A lot of the candidates then took the cue and played the role Democrats have carved out for themselves – savior of the downtrodden and dispossessed.

To be fair, I think that most African-Americans would probably dismiss out of hand this “illegal-immigration-is-the-greatest-threat-since-slavery” nonsense.

African-American writer Earl Ofari Hutchinson, who is doing a book about the relationship between blacks and Latinos, blasted the remark as an “eye-catching, over-the-top, outrageous bit of hyperbole.”

Although conceding that high unemployment rates disproportionately harm “young, marginal-skilled and educated black males,” Hutchinson noted that illegal immigrants are but the latest targets of those looking for scapegoats – a strategy he called “wrongheaded, misguided and fraught with peril.”

So true. So well said. And I suspect so unlike anything you’ll hear from any of the Democratic presidential candidates.

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

Wrapping themselves in a flag, many people have tried to desecrate its meaning coupling it with narrow-minded slogans. But we who have served in the armed forces know that the flag is larger than that.

On the Fourth of July, it is not simply a star-spangled banner we take time to honor. It is rather the depth, breadth and height of what our flag represents that we take time to reflect upon on this day.

The depth of its meaning comes from the countless sacrifices, large and small, that men and women have and will make in the fields, seas and skies of battle.

The breadth of its meaning emanates from the time, talent and treasure given by many who have served in the armed forces behind the scenes, supporting our soldiers, sailors and airmen but rarely being recognized.

And the height of its meaning stretches well beyond the heavens to those who have given and will give the last full measure of devotion to our country in a cause they believed to be just and honorable and which reflected all that our flag represents.

Wrapping themselves in a flag, many people have tried to desecrate its meaning coupling it with narrow-minded slogans, as if the presence of the flag lends them credibility and merits them allegiance.

But we who have served in the armed forces know that the flag is larger than that. We pledge allegiance not simply to a flag, but rather the principles upon which it is built.

We honor our democracy with all its flaws, honor our history with all triumphs and tragedies and acknowledge that we bring meaning and value to the flag.

That is why our flag can never really be desecrated by anyone who does not understand what it represents.

Our values, our commitment to one another and the sacrifices of more than 11 generations of our forebears raise our flags.

We know that patriotism cherishes both freedom and responsibility, couples justice with discernment, is honest and, when necessary, constructively critical.

Stars in a blue field do not stand alone. We are together in this perpetual process of building, refining and sustaining our democracy.

We know our country is a work in progress, building on those red and white stripes, the symbols of those who came before us to assure a better future for those who follow.

For more than 125 years, the Statue of Liberty on our East Coast has beckoned the world to join in the never-ending journey that is our democracy – a democracy that is weathered but never beaten, challenged but never broken.

Perhaps it would be appropriate if on the West Coast, we erected the Statue of Responsibility – communicating to the world that freedom lies between these two conditions and that freedom cannot exist without men and women of courage and fortitude who protect these ideals at any price.

An interesting phenomenon of the human condition is that the heart does everything it can to rescue the wounded body. It keeps pumping after other organs have stopped functioning. The heart will do everything possible to keep blood flowing.

Little wonder, then, that our flag, the symbol of freedom, and blood, the loss of which is how the price of freedom is measured, are so closely linked in our heritage and history.

The heart comes to the rescue of those who are left behind as well.

In a way, the sacrifices and the contributions of all who serve our country become that relentless beating heart that brings blood and therefore life to our democracy and the best of its ideals, even when parts of that democracy are not functioning so well.

It is as if their hearts are still beating, still raising our flag, still reminding us that the beat will go on, the perpetual beating of the heart of freedom will go on, sustained by our devotion to all that our flag represents.

David Bradley, Tucson Democrat, is a state representative for District 28.

SCOTLAND YARD announced that eight Muslim terror suspects arrested in the failed car bombings in London and Glasgow included three medical doctors from Iraq and Jordan. Everybody was shocked. They were the good guys in Michael Moore’s documentary “Sicko.”

BILL CLINTON flew to Iowa to make speeches with Hillary. Iowans are always sorry to see the Clintons go home. Whenever Bill and Hillary leave, the farmers have to go back to fertilizing the crops themselves.

HILLARY CLINTON collected millions at a New York fundraiser thrown by Indian-Americans. It’s a tricky phrase. Indian-American applies to Americans whose families came from India, not U.S. native tribes, who are known as Casino-Americans.

PRESIDENT BUSH attended a Ford’s Theater gala celebrating Christmas, complete with fake snow. It was taped June 24 to air in December on ABC. The next day, the show was retaped, with Nancy Pelosi as president.

PRESIDENT BUSH is trying to get away from his poll numbers while visiting Kennebunkport. After two days of fishing, his boat got stuck on the rocks and rocked violently. The Secret Service was alarmed, but then the fish threw him back in the boat.

HOLLYWOOD Madam Heidi Fleiss opened a coin laundromat in Nevada, 60 miles from Las Vegas. There’s something really fishy about the place. The powdered soap in the vending machines sells for $300 a box.

JOHN McCAIN took drastic measures to save money on his faltering presidential campaign by cutting staffers’ pay. It’s a break that his immigration reform bill went down to defeat. Otherwise, he’d have to pay them minimum wage.

Argus Hamilton is host comedian at The Comedy Store in Hollywood. E-mail: argus@argushamilton.com

Do those afraid of Cheney include Bush?
I applaud Mike Chihak’s column Saturday on our vice president (“Absolute power corrupts . . . Cheney”).

The way Cheney oversteps his authority and goes into issues that should not be within his purview is unbelievable.

Who allowed this man to accumulate this power?

As outlandish as it may sound, I wonder who our real president is. Any other president in my lifetime would have told Cheney to go back to the Senate, attend funerals and inquire about the president’s health each morning – and take Rove with him.

Could it be that Bush is just a front man? Is Bush really the cause of so much secrecy, deceit, stonewalling and other negative aspects of his administration?

Note how weak Bush has always been on issues, how addled his speech becomes when confronted by basic press questions, how he only speaks in public to sterilized audiences.

On the other hand, Cheney dares people in or out of the administration to contradict him or take him on.

He has more people scared of him than anyone else in the administration, with the possible exception of former Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove. Could Bush be one of them?

Recall that Cheney and Rove were the masterminds who resulted in Colin Powell being hung out to dry.

Cheney got us into Iraq and now wants to attack Iran.

I disagree with Chihak’s last sentence about taking our liberties. Through his influence with the FBI and other intelligence agencies misapplying the Homeland Protection Act, Cheney already has, and he wants more.

Do you see anyone stopping him?

JOHN P. FLAHERTY

Oro Valley

Columnist’s weasel words don’t hide bias
The Saturday column by Judy Carlock (“Clamping down on immigration fiscally unsound”) was very well written and included enough weasel words for the writer to hide behind if she is called on her opinions.

But I have some questions. Does she really think anyone who does not like to see this country harboring 12 million illegal immigrants (that we know of) is in any way a racist?

Does she really have such a low opinion of this country’s ability to survive while maintaining our own culture, language and society?

Did she write the piece to get a reaction, or are her thoughts a distillation of liberal thought patterns gained over her lifetime?

I still have some questions, but I am sure the Citizen editorial staff would think I was being offensive if I were I to ask them.

EUGENE COLE

retired

Read more letters to the Editor

Today’s debate: Is it OK for women to read romance novels?

Diane Glass, from the left: Romance novels a harmless diversion.

Shaunti Feldhahn, from the right: Erotica breeds dissatisfacation.

Shaunti Feldhahn is a Christian author and speaker and married mother of two children. E-mail: scfeldhahn@yahoo.com. Diane Glass is a writer and freethinker with a B.A. and M.A. in comparative religion. E-mail: dglass@ajc.com. Both women have degrees from Harvard.

There’s a war going on, children go to bed hungry and women are being raped at alarming rates in South Africa.

Harlequin novels may not be like reading Maya Angelou, but at least women are reading.

If we’re getting out the protest signs about insipid romance novels, why not rid the shelves of silly self-help books also. They, too, give women unrealistic and dangerous notions.

Like, say, the notions of the woman with breast cancer I saw on “Oprah”. She believed the positive-thinking mantra in the best-selling book “The Secret” was a more viable method of fighting cancer than chemo. Even Oprah thought she was wack.

Romance novels are about entertainment, not the dissemination of dangerous notions.

I don’t think Harlequin readers believe they’re doing in-depth gender research or Fabio is going to ride up on his white horse. I think they’re indulging in a little female pornography.

But I would argue that all porn isn’t equal. Comparing romance novels laced with story lines and plots to visuals of girls bent over motorcycles is unfair.

Erotica has been shown to have no adverse social implications, according to the in-depth study of pornography and erotica “Pornography: Research Advances and Policy Considerations” by Dolf Zillman and Jennings Bryant.

Violent and dehumanizing pornography was shown, however, to have antisocial implications.

The March 2004 issue of Social Science Quarterly reported that Internet pornography users also show weak social ties.

The evidence is in: Pornography is objectifying. The only knowledge someone wants about a model in a porn shot is carnal.

And, no, Playboy’s centerfold questionnaires about a gal’s favorite hobby isn’t character development. That’s marketing – and an excuse for those guys who say they only read Playboy for the articles.

The difference between erotica and porn isn’t the lighting; it’s the content.

Shaunti Feldhahn, from the right: Erotica breeds dissatisfacation.