Tucsonan Dr. Mark Ginsburg knows a thing or two about the game of chess. He became a master of chess at the age of  18 and an International Master at 22.  He is a three-time champion (and current champion) of the state of Arizona.

A few years ago, he envisioned a smart phone application to teach others to become chess masters. Today, his vision has become a reality with an iPhone app called Chess University, or Chess U, for short.

The platform is free via iTunes, as is a starter course called “Attack 101″. Each course has 10 lessons and each lesson has numerous quizzes.  At the end of a course, the user can opt to receive a diploma via email.  The point is to help them on the road to eventual chess mastery.

“The user reviews so far have been very positive,” says Ginsburg. “So far we have the free course and 4 “in-app purchase” courses.  Users can elect to purchase additional content for $0.99.”

The user experience is very simple.  No buttons or controls to navigate.  Just tap right-side of board to advance a move, and tap left-side of board to retreat a move.  Quizzes can be true/false or multiple choice with easy to read answer choices at the bottom of the screen.  There’s no training necessary to immediately start trying out the app.

Since not everyone has an iPhone, Ginsburg said that the courses will be available soon on native Facebook, since Facebook will soon introduce a monetary system. A customer will be able to purchase, using Facebook credits, courses much as they do on the iPhone.

“We also want the app to run natively on the iPad and are investigation other smart phones such as Android,” Ginsburg added.

Users of the application have requested more Chess U Courses and Ginsburg is working quickly to deliver them. He has gotten some friends to participate, too.  Marcel Martinez, a strong player in Florida, will deliver a Strategy Course.  Dave Vigorito from the Boston area is working an Openings Course. Steve Follmer is focused on a Beginner’s Course.

To learn more, watch the video below and visit the Chess U website.

Tucson is under scrutiny by the national media, again. Or should I say, still?

Hours after the horrific shootings on Saturday, the media swooped down on Tucson. Our local media, on numerous occasions since then, has credited national newspapers for new information about the Tucson tragedy. The Tragedy in Tucson, so named by the media, has dominated national headlines for the last few days.

Endless speculation by the media has also dominated headlines regarding motives of the alleged shooter. Our so-called political climate has been scrutinized. Today, the headlines are asking if the “pep rally” atmosphere at the memorial service was “appropriate”. .

The Associated Press has chimed in with their perspective: “Some question pep rally atmosphere at Obama speech.”

May I point out the name of the event, according to this AP headline? “Obama speech”

CBS News headline: “Obama’s Tucson Speech: Pep Rally or Memorial Service”.

The media started calling it that, some variation of “Obama’s Speech”, soon after President Obama accepted the invitation to attend what was once billed as a memorial.

As a result, the event somehow morphed into something else. A theme for the event emerged, called: “Together We Thrive:Tucson and America.” The theme doesn’t include anything about it that evokes a memorial. There’s nothing about remembrance, either.

The theme sounds like, well, like a political rally.

The Washington Post released an article prior to the event, describing the atmosphere outside the McKale stadium, like people “camped out” prior to a rock concert. “Camped out” became a common phrase used by many members of the national media to describe those who arrived early to “hear Obama speak”.

Please read a snippet from that article from The Washington Post. (They refer to the Pima County Assessor’s Office as “Pima County tax accessor’s office” by the way.)

“At an entrance to the stadium, people waited in a packed crowd in the warm afternoon sun. Many had been camped out there since mid morning and said the mood was exciting and generous. Sandra Kimmelman, 53, said she took the day off from her job at the Pima County tax accessor’s office to come hear Obama. She said people in line had given her candy, water and shared their pizza with her.

“There’s a sense of community,” she said. “I came because I want to hear Obama say we as a nation are all mourning and that we need to fight violence with love and peace. We need to be unified. 9-11 was the most horrific thing that happened to our nation. This comes close.”

Nicole Siegel, a freshman at the University of Arizona who is from Columbia, Md., said she was excited to hear Obama speak.

“I am happy to see he’s taking this seriously and isn’t just staying in the White House,” she said, wearing a light blue T-shirt with a picture of Obama on it.”

Full article here

They came to hear Obama. Would a T-shirt with Obama on it be appropriate for a memorial service? Is that why The Washington Post pointed out what she was wearing? Is that why they pointed out the pizza and candy?

The “event” was advertised as “first-come, first-served”, by the way. Like a rock concert. The “event” that drew media coverage to be broadcast around the world, was covered extensively for “Obama’s speech”.

So, now the media speculates over “appropriateness”.

Had Obama not been in attendance, would it have been covered to such an extent, or just broadcast locally with some members of the press present?

I’m grateful that Obama did attend. I watched the coverage from home. The President’s speech is what we needed to hear.

As far as criticism from the media, I’d like to remind you that you have created a media circus atmosphere in Tucson since you arrived Saturday.

Who is being disrespectful? Tucsonans or members of the national media?

I’ll have to go with the national media.

When the news of the mass shooting in Tucson began to circulate on Saturday, a memory from two years ago emerged in my mind. Gabrielle Giffords was in attendance at the Western-themed Empire Ranch Round-Up in Sonoita, Arizona.

Giffords kept a smile on her face the entire time at that outdoor event. Her eyes scanned the crowd constantly to find  people to engage with in conversation. There was no security entourage that could be seen surrounding her. A steady stream of people approached her to say hello.

Wild horses cannot keep Gabby from an event, from engaging with the public. That’s what we expect. It is just Gabby being Gabby. She is accessible to people, just like she was on Saturday.

Saturday.

Gabrielle Giffords, a supporter of gun rights, was among the casualties shot at Safeway. Safeway, a busy neighborhood grocery store where one normally feels…safe. A stark contradiction of how things were expected to go on that day.

As I watched news coverage on Saturday morning, trying to make sense of what had happened, memories of September 11th emerged in my mind. That day started normally, too, except that many people were late to work, exercising their right to vote. They died in Shanksville, the Pentagon, and inside the World Trade Center.

Those of us far away from New York, Washington and Pennsylvania could only watch the coverage on television, while trying to make sense in our minds of what was happening.

The words ‘Al Qaeda’ weren’t known to us yet. We could only speculate at that point about who would do something like that. Who would kill innocent people who didn’t do anything wrong?

My thoughts turned back to the news of what was happening in Tucson on Saturday. The national media reported Gabrielle Giffords dead, contrary to what local Tucson media reported. What were we supposed to believe? National media eventually retracted their version of events and apologized that they did not have their facts correct.

Within minutes, Twitter and Facebook immediately began buzzing with speculation about who could have shot Gabrielle Giffords and her constituents. It had to be a ‘right-winger’, a ‘Tea Partier’, the messages said. Contradictory news emerged from the friends and acquaintances of the shooter, Jared Loughner. They said that Loughner was ‘a leftist’. Those on the left cried, “he’s not one of us”, “he doesn’t share our values”. It was Sarah Palin, it was Glenn Beck, it was the Tea Party, they said. Somehow, they are responsible. All of the speculation based on short, nonsensical videos on Loughner’s YouTube page, and from who they expect to be blamed.

Then, due to Sheriff Clarence Dupnik’s speculation that the ‘rhetoric of violence’ was responsible for the massacre, those words continue to circulate. Still, based on a lack of evidence. Speculation from a Sheriff, no less. At time when we are supposed to come together in a tragedy, not be ripped apart as a result of one. A glaring contradiction from the facts that a Sheriff is supposed to provide to the public in an emergency. All law enforcement has to go on is physical evidence at this point. Yet, our own Sheriff spews speculation, adding fuel to a fire that should have never started.

Loughner is not cooperating, not talking.

Now, a campaign has started against talk show host Jon Justice for speaking out against Sheriff Dupnik’s words. Isn’t it free speech that the left is now trying to silence?

All of this while the voices of the dead will never again be heard. Gabby Giffords clings to life at the center of the tragedy, unable to speak.

If Gabby could speak, what would she say? It’s not our place to speculate. Instead, we’ll have to wait – and hope that she can someday voice her own thoughts to us.

What are the facts? We now know that his massacre was planned, based on physical evidence found at the Loughner home. It was planned for a long time. Loughner is ‘mentally unstable’ and there’s no proof that Palin, Beck or others influenced his killing spree. There’s only speculation. That is a fact.

Evidence has emerged that Pima Community College thought Loughner to be potentially mentally unstable several months ago.

Loughner’s profile on YouTube is presented with words used in the past tense. We can take from that evidence that he thought he was going to die on Saturday, shot by law enforcement or die by his own hand. Loughner didn’t expect to be subdued by bystanders. Loughner didn’t expect Giffords to survive his attack. A contradiction to well-laid plans.

Among the dead that Loughner did not plan to kill, except for the fact that they just happened to be there, was Judge John Roll. Judge Roll made an unplanned stop at the Safeway. For a while, it was unknown if Roll was the intended target. We now know that he was not. Christina Taylor Green was there, and we now know that she planned to meet Gabrielle Giffords.

We also now know that Christina Taylor Green, 9, was born on September 11, 2001, only to die in another massacre. She was featured in the book, “Faces of Hope”, showcasing babies born on 9/11. This child’s death should serve as a reminder that speculation only stirs up hatred and does not reflect the facts.

As evidenced so far, the lesson has not been learned.

When Tucson-born actor Daniel Kennedy prepared to leave Tucson in 2003, bound for New York, the Arizona Daily Star newspaper reported that he was is like a “first-round draft pick in the NBA”. Kennedy was selected to study at New York’s prestigious Juilliard School. Kennedy survived an intense 13-hour round of auditions before he became 1 of only 20 students selected to study at the drama division of the school.

Daniel Kennedy with celebrated soprano Renée Fleming / Photo courtesy of Daniel Kennedy

It wasn’t his first audition, though, and he wasn’t picked the first time. The previous year, Kennedy was wait listed at number 21 at Juilliard. He was determined to try again the next year and he worked hard. The hard work paid off, but the hard work didn’t end with his acceptance at the school. He became the first student to major in both drama and vocal arts. His talent for stage acting and opera were further developed at the school.

Kennedy’s first audition after attending Juilliard wasn’t a role in the theatre or in an opera, but it was a shot at the role of Petey Cortlandt on the ABC soap opera All My Children (AMC). The daytime drama played an unusual role in the meeting and courtship of his parents. His mother watched the soap opera between classes with friends at the University of Arizona’s Media Center, where his father worked to support himself through pharmacy school. AMC played a role in the future Daniel Kennedy being born.

The character of Petey Cortlandt on AMC had been portrayed by two younger actors in the years prior. For the new storyline, the former child character was slated to return home as an adult. While his training at Juilliard helped him to land the plum role, he arrived very prepared for the audition. Kennedy presented his own interpretation of the character. He made an impression at the audition. He made a great impression on AMC fans with his debut as Petey in July 2008.

The role was a departure from the amateur dramatic roles and stage work Kennedy had previously undertaken. However, it allowed him showcase his natural flair for comedic acting, a talent that took him in a different direction for a while.

The daytime soap eventually went in a different direction, on many levels, he shared. The show moved to Los Angeles from New York, which provided cheaper production costs for the show in a bad economy. Despite his immense popularity with fans, Kennedy was not invited to move with the show. His character, as well as the active storyline was left hanging with no resolution.

This was not true for Daniel Kennedy, who did not allow himself to be left hanging, he set his sights on working in a different direction, his original direction – but better defined with additional goals. Additionally, he said that he had already fallen in love with the culturally-rich New York City. He began to create opportunities for himself there.

While simultaneously auditioning for roles, he also returned to academic studies. He is enrolled in the City University of New York’s Baccalaureate for Unique and Interdisciplinary Studies, with a full academic scholarship. Kennedy’s interview with the Tucson Citizen was slightly delayed, due to his preparation for the Graduate Record Examination (GRE) and other commitments. He shared that his focus paid off. He aced the examination. He is also winding up a 7-month leadership program with Landmark Education, a training and development organization.

He also focuses his attention toward his current internship as an assistant to the Commissioner of the Department of Cultural Affairs (DCLA). DCLA the largest funder of culture in the country. His internship allows him to contribute to, and play a part in behind the scenes work for the amazing cultural institutions of New York that he dearly loves.

The internship is also preparing him for his goal to participate in the New York Marathon, believe it or not. Kennedy explains that he incorporated training into his morning commute: “I run for an hour every morning from my apartment in Queens, into Brooklyn, across the Brooklyn Bridge, to City Hall, to the DCLA office.”

Daniel Kennedy (L) with Bolshoi Ballet's Ivan Vasiliev (R) / Photo courtesy of Daniel Kennedy

He also looks forward to an upcoming internship in Buenos Aires at the National Opera House before he graduates. He won an international grant to study cultural policy there. There is no doubt that Kennedy will have additional acting or singing opportunities while he is away – perhaps a role in a television novella will present itself to the handsome Kennedy. Or, he can put his singing or dance talents to use. Yes, he is also very talented in dance.

After his internship is complete, he plans to return to his apartment in New York and visit his home state of Arizona as much as he possibly can.

Kennedy’s family, his Mexican-American heritage, and his hometown of Tucson are important to him. He was extremely disappointed with Arizona’s recent legislation, SB 1070, which he vocally opposed. About this, Kennedy said, “I was relieved with the intervention of the Department of Justice and Judge Bolton’s subsequent ruling.”

He works hard support the causes that are near and dear to his heart and that allow him to make a difference. He recently became the spokesperson for La Raza’s Youth Leadership, filming a commercial spot recently for the cause. Kennedy is destined for great things. Each conscious step he takes toward his goals are driven by determination, planning, and hard work.

He is grateful for the role of Petey, as well as the opportunity he had to work with, and learn from, his fellow actors on AMC. He truly appreciates the dedication of his fans, who actually started a protest that sparked a “Bring Petey Back to AMC” campaign on Facebook. The grumblings from fans about his character’s absence continues to this very day on soap opera discussion boards. Yet, Kennedy’s fans will support him in bigger roles, which is where Kennedy has intentionally placed his focus.

It doesn’t mean that he would turn down an invitation to continue the much-loved role of Petey – if the direction for himself and the character felt right, and if the timing was right.

The timing of his unanticipated exit from AMC was perfect for Kennedy, who realizes his ability to make a bigger contribution to the world. Speaking about his education, awards and affiliation with La Raza, he emphasized, “Being laid off from AMC was the perfect opportunity to reevaluate my purpose on this earth. All these things that have happened in the past year I credit to my participation at Landmark Education, a training and development organization. In two weeks, I am completing a 7 month-long leadership course that I credit for giving me the tools to create as many possibilities as I want.”

Due to his extraordinary talents and his proven determination, the next major opportunity will present itself to this determined young man from Tucson, at the right place and at the right time – and likely soon.

Learn more about Daniel Kennedy at http://www.officialdanielkennedy.com

——

Cherlyn Gardner Strong is a freelance writer, who pens a popular blog about the paranormal on the Tucson Citizen. She also contributes off-topic articles, off and on the Tucson Citizen website, on topics ranging from border issues to social networking.

The phrase “do the math” keeps coming up when referring to complex border issues. As a border resident, I notice things that people north of the border might not.

For example, my buddy the Three Sonorans made the argument on his blog that there are 8 Border Patrol agents per mile on the border. He did the math, I guess. He took the number of agents, divided it by the number of miles of the border. Hence, he came up with 8 agents per mile. He’s working on his PhD in math, so he ought to know.

However, he is wrong.

The “per mile” statements lead people to believe that there are actually 8 agents working in a given mile along the border. As a border resident under the jurisdiction of the Tucson sector, I drive sometimes to Tucson. I see agents here and there all the way to the checkpoint, which in my neck of the woods is about 25 miles north of the border. Then, we have the agents who work in and around Tucson, which is around 60 miles north of the border. We have agents who work in and around Casa Grande, about 150 miles north of Nogales. In fact, here’s a map to demonstrate my point.

Border Patrol Southwest Map

Look at Arizona on the map. There, you will see the Border Patrol stations in southern Arizona. They are indicated with those cute little red dots. I have two stations in the vicinity that jointly patrol parts of the area where I live (a fact that I think leads to some miscommunication).

From those stations, the Border Patrol agents work about one-third of the state (the cream colored area). They are NOT lined up at the border. They are doing things in that entire area. So, the math formula has to change distribute the agents in the square miles that are patrolled in southern Arizona.

What do they do so far from the border?

Well, groups of them rotate in shifts at the checkpoints north of the border. They patrol in the areas between the checkpoints to make sure no illegals or drugs have bypassed the checkpoints. (The illegals sure do bypass them!)  Some agents are busy with drug seizures. Other agents assist in the apprehension of people who are found to be here illegally.

Our newest blogger Karl Hoffman presented a story of a father who is scheduled to be deported. The father came here 20 years ago, before he was a father, with his wife. The couple settled down and had two children, now teenagers. Since the children were born here, they are U.S. citizens. Since they are underage, the mother gets to stay. The father, however, will be deported.

The parents knew that they were here illegally, but they had children knowing that they might get caught someday. They also knew what the consequences would be. In their case, it was 20 years before they were caught..20 years. Our agents are busy assisting in the apprehension of people that have been here for 20 years – and in some cases longer.

This is just wrong.

This is in the job description of a Border Patrol agent, if you don’t believe my assessment of what I see them doing every day:

The primary focus of Border Patrol Agents is to work in tandem with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) partners to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States. Border Patrol Agents also detect and prevent the smuggling and unlawful entry of undocumented aliens into the United States and apprehend people found to be in violation of U.S. immigration laws. Additionally, due to the increase in drug smuggling operations, they are the primary drug-interdicting agents along the land borders.

One of the most important duties performed by Border Patrol Agents is known as line-watch, involving the detection and apprehension of undocumented aliens and their smugglers by maintaining surveillance from a covert position, pursuing leads, responding to electronic sensor alarms, utilizing infrared scopes during night operations, using low-light level television systems, sighting aircraft, and interpreting and following tracks, marks, and other physical evidence. Border Patrol Agents also perform traffic checks, traffic observation, city patrol transportation checks, and other administrative, intelligence, and anti-smuggling activities.

Wow! Detect and prevent terrorists, undocumented aliens, drugs, and also apprehend those found to be here illegally. That is a hell of a lot to do. Add to that the administrative end of their jobs. Remember, this is government, so there are a lot of administrative tasks that go with the job. The temporarily placed National Guard troops granted by Obama will help with these said administrative tasks. The agents are still going to be doing all of the other things I mentioned, which is a hell of a lot in a given shift.

Additionally, an agent does not work around the clock in 24-hour shifts. We’d like them to, but they have to sleep. These aren’t robots, you know. So, in a given 24-hour period there are shifts in which these agents have to rotate (to patrol that particular “mile”, as they say) along the border. Many are stationed far north of the border. They also have days off and some of them do take vacations. Some might call in sick on a given day. Considering all of this, the formula then becomes very complex.

Now, do the math.

Last night, a friend of mine shared a link on Facebook called Fat Men Are Better in Bed on his Facebook wall. It was an interesting headline, so I clicked through to the post.

The post from Gawker stated that “researchers have found that men with higher body mass indices last seven minutes longer than their slender counterparts.” Therefore, the author decided that fat men were better in bed. The author did not state who performed the study. Instead, the post referenced another post from Salon, called: “Sex researchers: size does matter“, which also made an indication that fat men were better in bed.

I was curious about these assertions, so I investigated the sources for the Salon article. It listed two sources, neither of which made that assertion that fat men were better in bed.

One source that the Salon article referred to was a Courier Mail article, which  presented information on the yearlong study performed by Researchers at Erciyes University in Kayseri. This blurb was included in the Courier Mail article:

The survey’s results found fat men could last an average of 7.3 minutes during love making, while others only lasted 1.8 minutes.

So, when I clicked through to the second source used by Salon, it was an abstract of the study everyone was referring to, called: “Insight on pathogenesis of lifelong premature ejaculation: inverse relationship between lifelong premature ejaculation and obesity”.

Ah, so now we are getting somewhere, the study that Gawker refers to actually focused on 100 men who are no strangers to premature ejaculation. Reading the post, you might think that the study was indicative of ALL men in the general population.

So, fat men who ejaculate prematurely are indicated to last an average of  5 minutes longer than lean men who also ejaculate prematurely. I didn’t see that anywhere in the Gawker post

Additionally, I noted that Gawker gave seven additional minutes of sex to fat men. That’s not what the study said. The study said that fat men (who ejaculate prematurely) last an average 7.3 minutes versus the lean men (who also ejaculate prematurely) who last only 1.8 minutes on average. Gawker gave an extra two minutes to fat men, unless you take the post literally at seven minutes of more sex for fat men . Then, this would result in an entire nine minutes more of sex than lean men.

That’s very generous of the author of the Gawker post to give fat men so much more time in bed.

So, when I made these discoveries, I posted comments as I thought about them on my friend’s Facebook page. After all, he was sharing false information and it was my duty to debunk the misinformation. I went on with a one-sided rant and made four comments over the course of about an hour, while no one else weighed in on my comments.

Instead, my friend’s friends continued to “Like” the article and probably shared it with their friends, as well.

So, I left a comment on Gawker with my concerns, but instead received a reply from a fellow reader. He told me to disregard the information, consider the source, and “enjoy the ride” as far as Gawker posts are concerned.

What I soon realized is that no one cared about whether the post in question was factual or not as they continue to share it on Facebook. It asserted that fat men were better in bed and presented false information on top of it. Now, we’ve got fat men with inflated confidence, probably aiming to use the Gawker article as a pick up line at bars.

So, perhaps I can do some good and prepare some women out there, in the event that this does happen. I’m sure that they must care. Someone must care.

If you do care, try a little experiment for me. The next time you find an interesting article – sex study related or not, do some research. Click through to the article that the article was based on, and keep doing that on each article that comes up until you find the original source. Even then, if the article is based on scientific research, you may want to even try to access that source to get accurate information.

You will be very surprised how article information tends to become garbled during regurgitation of the same information as it is passed along from one author to another.

Consider the source.

Santa Cruz County, Arizona is a hot spot for birdwatchers to catch a glimpse of some of the most beautiful birds in the world. As a result, I couldn’t help but develop an interest in hummingbird watching.

My photography skills are also being developed at the same time while trying to capture images these lightning fast little guys. Some of these hummingbird photos are featured in a slideshow below. All photos were taken in the Patagonia Mountains.

I thought it would be nice to offer these photos to fellow hummingbird lovers to enjoy!

Slide 1 of 42.
Slide 2 of 42.
Slide 3 of 42.
Slide 4 of 42.
Slide 5 of 42.
Slide 6 of 42.
Slide 7 of 42.
Slide 8 of 42.
Slide 9 of 42.
Slide 10 of 42.
Slide 11 of 42.
Slide 12 of 42.
Slide 13 of 42.
Slide 14 of 42.
Slide 15 of 42.
Slide 16 of 42.
Slide 17 of 42.
Slide 18 of 42.
Slide 19 of 42.
Slide 20 of 42.
Slide 21 of 42.
Slide 22 of 42.
Slide 23 of 42.
Slide 24 of 42.
Slide 25 of 42.
Slide 26 of 42.
Slide 27 of 42.
Slide 28 of 42.
Slide 29 of 42.
Slide 30 of 42.
Slide 31 of 42.
Slide 32 of 42.
Slide 33 of 42.
Slide 34 of 42.
Slide 35 of 42.
Slide 36 of 42.
Slide 37 of 42.
Slide 38 of 42.
Slide 39 of 42.
Slide 40 of 42.
Slide 41 of 42.
Slide 42 of 42.

Last week, I wrote about my life in the forest on the Arizona-Mexico Border.

I received many comments both on and off the Tucson Citizen website about that post.

Some commenters said thank you to me for providing points to ponder, in regards to the complex border issue. Other commenters said that the article was pointless. Pointless, specifically, because I did not make a point to include my personal opinion regarding SB1070 or illegal immigration, nor did I make a point to suggest solutions to the problems related to the border.

I wrote a few off-topic posts away from my regular blog topic for about a week now. During that time I inserted one post that did make a point, at least the way I see it.

First, however, I’d like to share a story.

Harry Nillson wrote a story in the 1970′s called The Point! This story was made into an animated film, an album and a musical play.

The Point! is the story of Oblio, a small boy in the Pointed Village. In the Pointed Village, everything had a point. The people in the village even had points, including the trait of a point on top of their heads. Oblio, however, was different. He did not have a point on his head. He was born with a round head.

Because Oblio did not have a pointy head, he was banished to the Pointless Forest. In the Pointless Forest, Oblio had many experiences with the people and creatures of the forest. During his time in the Pointless Forest, Oblio made an important observation. He noticed that the trees had pointy tops and the mountains had pointy peaks. He realized that even the Pointless Forest had a point.

When he returned home to tell the villagers his point, everything became pointless in the Pointed Village, even the villagers’ heads – with the exception of Oblio’s. Oblio finally got that point on the top of his head.

There’s a point, to all this, and I’ll get to it.

The other day, I wrote on a drug tunnel discovered under the southbound lane of the Port of Entry in Nogales. I had several issues with the AP reporting of this story. The article emphasized that the Border Patrol, along with state, local and Mexican authorities discovered the unfinished tunnel. This point was made in two different paragraphs. Only one sentence pointed out that the tunnel was discovered on this day, only after the road collapsed under the weight of a bus. The rest of the article made a point that the discovery of drug tunnels in Arizona was down this year versus last year.

I became interested in drug tunnels for a period of time that evening. I Googled other articles about drug tunnels. I came across an article out of San Diego that stated that the Department of Homeland Security, noting an increase of drug tunnels (up 63%), pointed out that these tunnels are a growing threat to national security.

Well, needless to say, I had points to ponder from that article. Were tunnel numbers only up in California? This article didn’t say.

I presented both articles in a blog post. At the end of that post, I made a simple statement and posed a question that could be read in a number of ways:

If these “numbers” are true from DHS, it doesn’t make sense that the tunnels would actually be down in Arizona. It would make more sense that the “discoveries” in Arizona would be down.

Wouldn’t it?

I quickly received two answers to my question. One commenter who made a point is a fellow blogger and a former reporter for the Tucson Citizen. The other commenter did not state her background, but did also make a couple points.

From Hugh (a former reporter):

“God knows how many tunnels there are under Nogales. When I ran the Public Works Department we’d stumble into them whenever digging a trench. Sometimes the cartel would rent a house, and dig a tunnel from the house and only when neighbors got suspicious and the house was raided would the tunnel be discovered.

Some of the tunnels are quit professional…lights, ventilation. They mostly go to the city drainage system which connects to the covered tunnel that runs to Mexico..a major hole in border security….and occasionally the tunnels actually go straight across the border.

The joke down there is the whole downtown area is going to collapse into a giant sink hole.

The fact that fewer tunnels were discovered doesn’t mean there are fewer tunnels…another  Border Patrol statistic game. It just means they haven’t been found yet.”

From Christina (background unknown):

“I read both articles and found the conclusion of the Citizen reporter unfounded.  The article released by the AP only talks about the Tucson sector in the last year.  The article published by NBC San Diego does not specifically say anything about a particular sector but says the border in general and discusses the events over the last several years (which is nebulous when trying to do a proper comparison).  If both articles are true, the reporter should have come up with the conclusion that tunneling must be moving to other areas on the border, such as Tijuana and Calexico, and that the emphasis on the Tucson sector is actually discouraging the drug lords from taking chances in Nogales, but the most likely scenario is what Hugh said in his reply, they just haven’t found them, yet.”

Well, first off, we are not reporters here at the Tucson Citizen. We are bloggers. So, Hugh, as a former reporter, did not make reference to statistics from the media. Instead, he spoke from personal experience from his former job with the Public Works.

Christina, on the other hand, felt that I should have taken the stance as a reporter and deduced that the tunnel threat was moving to California. However, she did state her opinion that she agreed with Hugh that the tunnels had not been discovered yet in Arizona.

WAIT! Isn’t that what my deliberately misleading statement and question also hinted at – emphasized by quotation marks around the word ‘discoveries’? If you are unsure, go back and read it again. Perhaps you will still form a different opinion about what I meant. That’s your opinion.

The reason for that drug tunnel post was to actually get people to use their heads, with the points given, and to make a conclusion based on reasoning.

The same holds true for my pointless post about life in the forest. I made points in that post, but I did not offer my opinion,  nor did I share my political views. It drove some people crazy that I did that.

Americans are too used to Maddow, Beck, Olbermann, and all the other talking heads making their talking points about the issues, forming their left or right skewed opinions based on the facts. During debate sessions I have with people, I hear: Maddow proved this, Beck proved that.

If you were simply presented with the facts, and you were not enlightened by their opinions or slant on the issues, would you really actually see things the same way as Maddow or Beck see them?

More and more, the same thing applies to the way the entire media present the news, even on the local news channels. Even if straight news is reported, the news anchors will heave a sigh, or shake their heads after a story. Or, they’ll come right out and say what they think.

Personally, I would rather be presented with a set of facts to use to form my own conclusions, but this does not hold true for everyone.

I purposely did not say what I think about what should be done about the border or what I think about SB1070.  This threw some people off. Would my opinion have made the points that I shared in that article about the facts of my daily life, well, pointless? I think so. My opinions aren’t left or right. I see validity in many points that both sides make about the issues.

The point of the article was simply to share with readers about my life in a border region. Another point of it was to allow the reader to form their own opinion based on what I shared.

Nothing is going to happen based on an opinion piece. Any opinions, points and possible solutions that I think of will be sent to the government. They can decide whether I have made a good point that they should act on, or not.

I saw that some people on a discussion forum thought that my article was “b.s.”. That’s their opinion and I’m glad that they formed their own opinion about it, regardless of that opinion.

In that article about my life in the forest, I placed you in a Pointless Forest, like Oblio.

It is up to you to think about it and take a look around you. When you return to the Pointed Village, your view may be the same as Oblio’s. Maybe you might discover some other features of the forest that Oblio didn’t see. Perhaps you just can’t see the forest for the trees and come up with nothing.

It’s your set of eyes and it’s your brain. Form your own conclusion after considering all the points.

There’s no point to this pointless video clip, except that it’s from the animated film, The Point!

(Updated clip at 11:20 am)

Several hours ago, an AP article alerted the world that the weight of a bus caused the collapse of a road in a very curious spot in Nogales. The collapse in the road alerted law enforcement to a border tunnel directly under the Nogales, Arizona Port of Entry.

The AP article emphasized that drug tunnel discoveries were significantly down in Arizona. Specifically, 20 were discovered in 2009. Only five tunnels were discovered in the same period of time this year, in 2010.

Several days ago, NBC San Diego quoted the Department of Homeland Security as stating that the number of border tunnels has actually increased significantly, 63% in the last several years.

Additionally, they state that these tunnels are a growing threat to national security.

If these “numbers” are true from DHS, it doesn’t make sense that the tunnels would actually be down in Arizona. It would make more sense that the “discoveries” in Arizona would be down.

Wouldn’t it?

Several hours ago, the Associated Press released an article that confused me.

In fact, I read it a couple of times.

Read it and I’ll tell you my opinion after that.

Another tunnel discovery in Nogales

(AP) – 10 hours ago

TUCSON, Ariz. — Another border tunnel has been found on Arizona’s border with Mexico.

U.S. Border Patrol agents working in cooperation with local and federal law enforcement agencies found a tunnel Friday in Nogales, under the southbound lane at the DeConcini Port of Entry.

The weight of a passenger bus caused a collapse in the road.

Border Patrol agents, with assistance from Mexican law enforcement, discovered an unfinished tunnel originating in Mexico.

From Oct. 1, 2009, to July 31, 2010, five tunnels were identified within the Tucson Sector. During the same period last year, 20 tunnels were discovered.

Authorities say smugglers mostly use tunnels to move drugs to the U.S.

Okay, so two paragraphs in this article give credit to Border Patrol, local, state and Mexican authorities for finding this tunnel.

It was actually the weight of the bus that caused the road to give way. So, it was the bus that actually alerted law enforcement to the fact that something just wasn’t right with the road.

Just wanted to give credit where credit was due, since the media seems to have taken the focus off of the object that actually discovered the tunnel.

Border residents are grateful for that bus.

I also noticed that there is a focus on the discovery of tunnels in 2010 (5) AND 2009 (20). There is a significant decline between last year and this year, which gives credibility to those decreased numbers that everyone was talking about.

Should Arizona actually direct any border money toward heavy busses?