Blog For Arizona

Demcratic National Convention 2008, Thinks Green

by Pat Canady

The Denver 2008 Convention Host Committee, along with representatives from Humana (NYSE: HUM) and Bikes Belong have joined to bring 1,000 bikes to Denver for people to use during the week of the Democratic National Convention.

Freewheelin is a national bike-sharing program developed by Humana and and bike industry groups like Bikes Belong. The purpose is to encourage people to enjoy healthy living and environmental sustainability. The 1,000 bikes can be used free of charge while the convention is in town. It gives people alternatives to automobile usage.

While some of us will be seeking a Light Rail Pass (since we are 12 miles away from the Convention Center), others now have a choice. Not only will this cut down on emissions pollution, but it will take solve the Parking Space problems as well.

The committee members responsible for this plan are: Elbra Wedgeworth, President/Chair Democratic

National Convention 2008; Colorado Governor Bill Ritter, Jr.; Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper; Dan Oftedahl, President CO Region Human, Inc.; and Tim Blumenthal, Executive Director of Bikes Belong.

It is encouraging when cities implement "GREEN" choices in their transportation plans!

Social Promotion: Not as New, or as Simple, as The Star Makes it Sound

by David Safier

There's so much to be written about the Star's series that began with Social Promotion in Tucson area schools Sunday and continued with Grade Inflation today. I'm going to limit myself to one small aspect of the social promotion question. Maybe I'll write more later.

When I was taking education classes in 1968, one of the two non-instructional topics my profs dwelt on was social promotion. Back then, the concern was the dropout rate. Social promotion would lower the dropout rate, the thinking went, so it should be encouraged. Now, decades later, the consequences of social promotion are seen as the problem.

This is typical in education circles -- or, maybe I should say, it's the typical educational circle. You see a problem, so you create a fix. A few decades later, the fix becomes the problem, so you "fix" it by returning to a variation of the problem you encountered decades earlier.

Around and around we go.

Right now, for the sake of this post, let's create a scenario where we end social promotion completely. When students fail classes, especially core classes like reading and math, they're held back until they pass. No exceptions. Zero tolerance for failure.

Now, let's look at the educational world we'll create, focusing on the eighth grade, just to simplify this tremendously complicated issue.

In this world of ours, eighth graders who fail classes have to repeat the eighth grade. If they fail a second time -- as many will -- they have to repeat it again, and so on. Pretty soon, we have 15, 16 and 17 year olds sitting in cramped middle school desks next to their 13 and 14 year old classmates. The older students are more physically mature, and many are likely to be behavior problems. Do you want eighth grade classes attended by 15, 16 and 17 year olds who might be some of the most difficult students to educate and keep in line? For me, this creates some very uncomfortable scenarios.

But maybe the schools will take care of that problem by putting these repeat eighth graders in separate classrooms, or alternative programs. Still, they won't be promoted to the ninth grade until they have ninth grade skills, which means many of them will stay eighth graders for years. How long will these students tolerate being held back? Not long, I imagine. After one, or at the most two years, many of them will give up and drop out.

We're in the midst of a social and educational experiment the likes of which has never been attempted in the history of the world. We want to keep all our children in school for twelve years, and at the same time, we want all of them to reach a high level of proficiency in reading, writing and math. Those conflicting aspirations put us in a bind. If some of our students aren't proficient, do we adopt a zero tolerance policy on their performance and risk increasing the number of drop outs, or do we do everything in our power to keep them in school, hoping that some of them will kick in later and develop the skills we want them to have, or at the very least will reach a higher level of proficiency by remaining in school than by leaving?

Much of our educational conversation is driven by the dynamic conflict between keeping students in school and increasing their levels of academic proficiency, but we rarely phrase it in those terms.

John McCain For Sale (Censored News)

Posted by: AzBlueMeanie

(Thanks to tw3k for this photoshop of the On The Take Express)

The press poodles for McCain over at the Arizona Daily Star continue to censor any critical reporting about the senator being on the take to his campaign contributors.

You may recall that the Star recently did not publish any mention of the New York Times front page investigative report  A Developer, His Deals and His Ties to McCain - New York Times by David Kirkpatrick and Jim Rutenberg.  The report involved our legendary local land speculator and developer, Donald Diamond.  You would think that this merited a mention in the Star.

The Star asserted in an editor's note, however, that it had previously reported on the relationship between Sen. McCain and Donald Diamond.

Umm, apparently not.  The Star's Reader Advocate had to admit in a column on May 4, 2008 that a search of Star articles did not reveal any such reporting.  Star political editor Joe Burchell explained that he dismissed the reporting as "flawed" because he is the local fountain of knowledge of all things political in Pima County and he knew the reporters got their facts wrong on the details of the land swaps.  But Mr. Burchell did not address the central point of the story, i.e., that Donald Diamond views the senator as being on his personal retainer for special favors:

"I think that is what Congress people are supposed to do for constituents. When you have a big, significant businessman like myself, why wouldn't you want to help move things along? What else would they do? They waste so much time with legislation."

Professional disagreement over details in a story is one thing.  Censorship of a story is quite another.

Now the Washington Post has published it's own front-page investigative report McCain Pushed Land Swap That Benefits Backer - washingtonpost.com by Matthew Mosk.  Does anyone see a pattern emerging here?

According to the Post, "the Arizona Republican became a key figure in pushing the deal through Congress after the rancher and his partners hired lobbyists that included McCain's 1992 Senate campaign manager, two of his former Senate staff members (one of whom has returned as his chief of staff), and an Arizona insider who was a major McCain donor and is now bundling campaign checks."  Once the legislation was passed, Fred Ruskin turned over the development of the land to Steven Betts of SunCor Developments, a McCain Trailblazer.

Once again, not even a mention in the Star.  Just another coincidence in a long line of coincidences establishing a pattern of conduct by McCain to benefit the campaign contributors who finance his campaigns.  McCain's assertion that "I have carefully avoided situations that might even tangentially be construed as a less than proper use of my office," is laughable and not supported by the record (going back to Charles Keating).

The Arizona Daily Star gives the appearance that it is censoring investigative reporting by the nation's leading newspapers that is critical of John McCain.  The Star's editorial judgment is seriously flawed, or worse, biased.

Shortly after McCain announced his candidacy last year, Star Opinion Editor Ann Brown was invited to join McCain on his bus in Iowa.  She dedicated the March 18, 2007 edition of the Star to a candidate profile of McCain.  About his roots | www.azstarnet.com ® ; Immigration, growth on McCain agenda | www.azstarnet.com ® Nothing wrong with this.  But Ms. Brown contributed her own "love notes from the bus" styled campaign report.  Iowa field work | www.azstarnet.com ®  It was enough to make Elisabeth Bummiller blush.

Censorship of news is unacceptable in a democracy.  Bias in news coverage is to be avoided.

This is my suggestion to the editors of the Arizona Daily Star.  Publish these major investigative reports by the nation's leading newspapers and publish your own "Local Angle" companion piece, for which you have carved out a niche, stating your own analysis.  Then invite the reporters who wrote the original investigative report to respond to your Local Angle analysis to give the reporting a full and fair airing.  This would give the voters of Arizona the information they need to make an informed decision in November.

In fairness to the Arizona Daily Star, its competitor newspapers in this state have been only slightly more objective in their coverage of John McCain. There is substantial room for improvement by all.

Clinton Skewered on SNL

This is brilliant political humor. Just enough truth to sting.

In Praise of High School Students

by David Safier

I spend a lot of pixels criticizing School Boards and Superintendents and the Arizona Legislature. (Have you ever thought how many pixels had to die, how many ones and zeros were cut down in their prime, to create this post? It's horrifying!) But I can't remember bad mouthing any students in my writing, because I am not one of those who complains about "these rotten kids who have no respect for their elders, have no morals and spend the whole day with their Ipods stuck in their ears."

Why, back in my day . . . Oh wait, my generation's motto was "Sex, Drugs and Rock 'n Roll." Never mind.

Today I want to join the NY Times columnist Nicholas Kristof in singing the praises of some students -- many students -- who reach out well beyond their comfort zones to make the world a little better.

In keeping with thousands of years of tradition, I should be wringing my hands about adolescents these days, so lazy and degenerate compared with my own upstanding generation. But when I see high school students working energetically to save the lives of people half a world away, before they are even allowed to buy a beer, I’m reduced to mumbling admiration. These kids are truly inspiring.

Kristof writes about students whose efforts built an elementary school in Cambodia, raised nearly half a million dollars for Darfur, helped buy mosquito netting to prevent malaria in Africa, and on and on.

He recognizes that many of these students are bulking up their resumes to get into college. True enough in many cases. But my feeling is, once they've been part of one of these efforts, it resides forever in their socially-responsible DNA, possibly lying dormant for years, but ready to be pressed back into action at some point in their lives. And I know efforts like these happen in schools where the students aren't thinking about college. It may be at a more local level, like neighborhood cleanups, helping at a senior citizen home or something like that, but it's the same thing. It does somebody good in the world beyond the students' immediate circle of friends and family, and at the same time, it stimulates that altruism gene, which helps it grow stronger.

I was never good at this stuff as a teacher, but another teacher at my high school was a marvel. He got a Key Club group going that developed a national and even worldwide reputation in the organization. One summer the students built a playground in a park. They also planned and created a series of raised planting beds in a senior citizen home where the residents, who wouldn't have been able to work the soil at the ground level, could sit in chairs and spend many enjoyable and purposeful hours planting and tending gardens. Both projects involved a great deal of interaction with the local business communities, and they involved a phenomenal amount of research (What's the best soil to use, how do we create an irrigation system that is efficient and good for the environment?) The guy taught math, so most of this was new to him as well as his students. He had to count on the club members for research and information. Students often turned their research into projects in their science classes.

I sat in on the Key Club meetings a few times. They were held 45 minutes before school began (many of these kids were too busy to meet any other time), in the school's Little Theater. The room was packed. The students conducted the meetings. The teacher occasionally offered comments from the sidelines, but just as often, he stood with his arms folded and watched.

Because this was a middle to upper-middle class high school, most of these kids were college bound, and some of them probably got into the colleges of their choice in part because of their Key Club involvement. But lots of them were going to Community College or the University of Oregon, where either a high school diploma or a reasonable GPA was all they needed to get in. They had no resumes that needed building. They were there because that was the place to be.

Activities like these get an occasional spotlight in the paper, but more often they don't. We hear about the drug busts and fights and dropouts and, in today's Star, students who fail their classes and still get promoted. Yes, that's part of the picture. But it's only part of the picture. With today's youth, as with youth in every generation all over the world, we can find much worthy of praise.

Note: I don't have to tell this to the regular commenters, but anyone who has a positive story about students to share (if you have a negative story, please save it for another time), the Comment lines are always open. Just click on "Comments" at the end of this post, put in a name (you can make up a handle if you want to remain anonymous) and an email address (it will not appear on your comment -- no one will know how to contact you) and type away. Write five words or a few hundred words. Press Preview to see what you've written. When you're satisfied, press Post. That's all there is to it.

New ELL Research Trumps Horne's Old ELL "Research"

by David Safier

I'm no expert on ELL education, and I won't play "Expert" here. I honestly don't know the best way to teach students who aren't proficient in English. But I do know the controversy that raged in Arizona over bilingual vs. English Immersion instruction. EI won. According to Tom Horne, his decision to replace bilingual ed with EI was "Research based."

Anybody remember my post a few days ago about Bush's Reading First program, based on "scientifically based reading research"? Turns out a Dept of Ed study concluded that the $6 billion program had no effect.

Well, chalk up another one for the conservative version of scientific research. It sounds like Horne's "Research based" English Immersion is coming out about the same -- no measurable effect.

See, Horne's "Research" came down to one study, and that study wasn't very thorough and didn't do such a good job controlling for length of time in the U.S., poverty or other factors that are critical to any decent study.

Preliminary findings from a recent, more thorough study indicate that, at best, the three states using the English Immersion model had, um, mixed results, to put it nicely. And of the three, Arizona, which is the most thoroughly English Immersed, seemed to show the poorest results.

Disclaimer: I am not now, nor have I ever been a fan of educational research. For any number of reasons, it's ridiculously hard to get verifiable results in these studies. But people like Horne, who proclaim that they legislate by the study, deserve to be hung by the study as well.

Here's how the director of Linguistic Minority Research Institute summed up the results: "“There’s no visual evidence that these three states [using English Immersion] are doing better than the national average or other states."

Here's my favorite part. Our own Tom Horne was asked what he thought of the results of the new study. He said, the test results the study is based on aren't fair. The states using bilingual education test their students in Spanish, while we test ours in English. Of course their scores are higher.

OK, that makes sense. Except for one little problem. IT'S WRONG! (Sorry for shouting.) The reading test used in the study is always administered in English. Sometimes the math test is given in Spanish, but those all important reading tests that, um, test how well a student reads -- they're always in English.

So the next time you hear Horne give a simple, facile reason why he's right and others are wrong, he may be absolutely right. Then again, he may be lying through his teeth stretching the truth a bit.

The Double Talk Express: McCain is a Fraud on Campaign Finance Reform

Posted by: AzBlueMeanie

This past Tuesday, John McCain pandered to the GOP conservative base by vowing to appoint conservative activist judges like John Roberts, Jr. and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.  McCain praised the justices as role models for the judges he would appoint to the court.

Apparently everyone has kissed and made up over the Roberts’ Court striking down a big chunk of the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA).

Or maybe McCain never really cared all that much about campaign finance reform in the first place.  McCain's commitment to public financing questioned - The Boston Globe  His reputation as a campaign finance reformer is largely a media myth created by what McCain affectionately calls “his base.” 

Last year McCain carved out a loophole in the law to exempt aircraft owned by a candidate or his family or by privately held company they control.  This loophole allowed McCain to use his millionaire heiress wife’s private corporate jet at a substantial savings to his campaign.  McCain Frequently Used Wife’s Jet for Little Cost - New York Times  “Last summer, just before starting to use his wife’s plane, Mr. McCain was quoted in a newspaper report as saying that he did not plan to tap her substantial wealth to keep his bid for the Republican presidential nomination going.”  But boss, what about “Zee plane!  Zee plane!”

Last November when the McCain campaign had been declared dead by his media base (where’s the love?), McCain managed to negotiate a sweetheart deal with the Fidelity & Trust Bank in Maryland for a life saving loan to his campaign.  The $3 million line of credit was secured by his fundraising list and the highly unusual requirement that he take out a life insurance policy in case he did not survive the campaign.  With Crucial Loan, McCain Put His Bid Back in the Black - washingtonpost.com

Cleta Mitchell, a Republican campaign finance lawyer, said she believes the arrangement raises serious questions. "Did they base this loan on the fact that, even if he lost, he would still be a sitting senator and able to raise money?" she asked. "In my mind, that raises questions about whether he complied with Senate ethics rules," which bar members from using their position to negotiate financial terms that an average citizen could not.

Fitz Nails the Arizona Anti-Education Crowd

by David Safier

Today's Daily Fitz in the Star.

(Noteworthy: Great party/event last night, linking Drinking Liberally and Smoking Conservatively. About 70 people there (a "conservative estimate," in honor of the right wing attendees), a mixture of Ds, Rs, Is (Independents) and Ls (Libertarians). Lots of candidates of various stripes as well. A love fest, generally, mixed in with spirited, disputatious discussion. The first, I hope, of many.)

Random Educational Stuff

by David Safier

Florida Sub Fired for Classroom Wizardry: Land O' Lakes, Florida, has moved from the Stone Age all the way up to the Middle Ages. A substitute teacher entertained his class with a magic trick. He made a match disappear and reappear. A parent called the school accusing him of wizardry. The district told him they would no longer call him to sub. The district swears it had other reasons to get rid of him. Trust me. Subs are rarely fired. It was the magic trick. (The story has already been picked up all over the world, by the way. The only way it can get more legs is if Bush and the Republican legislators push a bill forbidding witches and sorcerers from teaching in public schools. Those who persist will be burned at the stake.)

They're laughing at us in Long Beach: Cal State Long Beach's independent student newspaper is making fun of the Arizona bill to make it illegal to denigrate American values in schools. "Doesn't sound like the America we know now, does it? Well it's not. It's Arizona. Our neighbor. The Grand Canyon State." I'd be insulted if I didn't agree.

How to deal with a nursing shortage: don't let students into Nursing School: No wonder people make fun of Arizona education. The stories practically write themselves. "The College of Nursing and Healthcare Innovation can afford to admit only 60 percent of the Arizona State University students who apply each year, even as the state struggles with a nursing shortage." To be fair (I try, really), the article goes on to say, "The nursing college doubled in size the past six years" and has been successful at increasing the number of nurses in the state. But if we cut higher education spending, and it's hard to see how we can avoid it (without increasing revenues, which means increasing taxes, which means people will have to admit that us tax-and-spend liberals sometimes know what we're talking about), nurses, teachers and other needed professionals will be in even shorter supply.

Will Cyber Schools knock out brick-and-mortar schools? A Harvard business prof just published a book, "Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns." According to the article, "disrupting" our education system is a good thing, akin to the disruptive force of computerized businesses on more traditional businesses. He thinks distance learning will simply overwhelm traditional learning, and it will not be done by today's schools changing. It will be new schools replacing the old. Remember, though, business models rarely work in education, which is now and has always been a very labor intensive process. Whether the internet will change that picture, only time will tell. He very well may be wrong, like other business types who said they were going to make education more economical and successful, and failed. Twenty years from now, we can reconvene and see if he got it right.

A Drinking & Smoking Summit

Some may have seen the guest opinion in today's Tucson Citizen announcing the Drinking Liberally / Smoking Conservatively Summit this Thursday starting at 6pm at the Shanty on 4th Avenue and 9th Street:

Partisanship has acquired a bad name of late. It's become closely associated with the name-calling, character assassination, fear mongering and actively misleading propaganda that we see far too often in politics now.

But true partisanship, a passionate belief in one's values and ideology and a dedication to promoting them, is an essential component of a vigorous democracy.

Just as peer-review is essential to scientific progress, healthy partisanship is essential to political and social progress.

Science advances only through criticism, rivalry and purposeful debate based on observation, experimentation, and speculation. Guided by careful, honest peer-review and trial and error, scientists have come ever closer to understanding and mastering the natural world.

Similarly, robust democratic decision-making is not possible without the error correction provided by peer-review. Only with the aid of criticism, even if harsh or born of out-right rivalry, can we hope to discover the truth.

In an effort to promote honest and substantive partisan conversation of this kind, the committed liberals of Tucson's Drinking Liberally chapter and the committed conservatives of Tucson's Smoking Conservatively have joined together to sponsor a Citizen Summit.

It is our hope that this summit will be a place for political rivals to be citizens first and foremost, bringing together interested citizens of all ideological persuasions to freely and respectfully speak their minds and respond to the calls of their consciences.

All are welcome.

Too often in our current political climate, fraternizing with our ideological opposites is considered fraternizing with the enemy.

In reality, it is an opportunity to learn about their views, explain our own and engage in open intellectual debate.

We reject the idea that it is healthy or desirable to engage in political discourse only with those who agree with you. We reject the notion that you cannot respect, befriend or learn from those with whom you strongly and fundamentally disagree politically.

In a nation of free citizens who must cooperate to make democratic decisions, our political leaders cannot be effective unless they work productively with those with whom they disagree.

Because a vigorous and productive trade in the marketplace of ideas is vital to our society, we call on politicians to rediscover the proper etiquette of peer-reviewed politics.

Hard-nosed political realism, the lessons of history and simple humility all teach us that no single viewpoint or political ideology can sustain a pluralistic democratic society.

If peer-reviewed partisan politics is to flourish, then we cannot view those of other parties or persuasions as enemies. Such an attitude fosters the detrimental type of partisanship that leads to the complete avoidance of real issues.

We must view our counterparts across the aisle, across the room, across the nation as fellow citizens, honorable Americans and worthy rivals: in short, as our respected peers.

Engaging those with different views, both socially and intellectually, is necessary to the development of strong and respectful peer relationships and a healthy democratic process.

Ambitious goals are not achieved in one night, nor as a result of any single event. They come from habits long cultivated and commitments long honored.

Our Citizen Summit is just one attempt to begin to rehabilitate our democracy as a tool for shaping a better society. Together, we will recommit to shared American values, strengthen our social ties as fellow citizens and begin to explore informally our respective roles as constructive political peers and rivals.

We hope you'll join us.

Michael Bryan is host of Tucson's Drinking Liberally and Editor of BlogForArizona.com.

Other people who signed this Guest Opinion are:
• Frank Antenori, Republican candidate for state House, District 30.
• Cheryl Cage, Democratic candidate for state Senate, District 26.
• Ray Carroll, Republican member of the Pima County Board of Supervisors.
• Andrea Dalessandro, Democratic candidate for state House, District 30.
• Steve Farley, Democratic state senator, District 28.
• Don Jorgensen, Democratic candidate for state House, District 26.
• Jeffrey Latas, vice chair, Arizona Democratic Party.
• Vic Williams, Republican candidate for state House, District 26 and Host of Tucson's Smoking Conservatively.

I hope we'll see you there, too.

Arizona Charter Schools: The Good, The Bad, and The Costly, Part 7: Rep. Lujan is Mostly Correct

by David Safier

(Here are parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.)

After reading over Lujan's explanation of HB2816 in last night's post a few times, I was ready to blast him for dancing around the issue I raised. But this morning I read it a few more times and went back to the actual bill, and I realized that I had made an incorrect assumption. (Remember in an earlier post, I gave myself the blogger's right to jump to conclusions? Remember I said I would correct any errors?) The bill does not give any extra funding to Cyber Schools as I thought it did. The inclusion of a possible 125% funding per student refers only to students who also attend a Joint Technical Education District program, which offers vocationally based education. (Thanks to HikerDave for pointing that out to me.) That's a perfectly legitimate exception in my book. Students who attend both a Cyber School and a traditional bricks-and-mortar school still only have a 100% allotment, to be split between the two. Fair enough.

Lujan was also right to say, "HB2816 also addresses concerns raised in the Auditor General's Report about academic accountability by making TAPBI programs more accountable to state standards." The new bill insists on proctored exams for students. Some Cyber Schools have allowed students to take their exams without supervision. The bill is unclear about how many and what kinds of exams are proctored, but it's a step toward greater accountability.

So, Rep. Lujan, thanks for clearing up my confusions about the nature of the bill. But I can't let you off the hook completely. You say the bill clarifies that the Cyber Schools can't get more than their rightful share of state funding, implying the earlier version was unclear. Uh uh. The original bill was perfectly clear on that score. All this bill does in that area is add the possibility of 125% funding when a JTED is involved.

If the original bill was perfectly clear, then where did the $6.4 million mistake originate? Why were Cyber Schools given more money than the law allowed when their students also attended bricks-and-mortar schools? The answer, according to the October, 2007 Performance Audit, is, the Arizona Department of Education screwed up. "The Student Accountability Information System (SAIS), ADE’s computer-based program that calculates ADM, currently does not have the capability to adjust for concurrent TAPBI enrollment." So the ADE created a really spreadsheet to deal with TAPBI, but it was a really crummy spreadsheet that didn't catch the dual enrollment problem.

So there was nothing wrong with the original law when it comes to the proper, proportional distribution of the funds. The problem was with the well trained, highly skilled folks working under Tom Horne's watchful eye. Well, maybe not so highly skilled. And maybe not so watchful eye.

I found more of interest in the audit that I want to write about in future posts, especially the question of whether Cyber Schools are being funded at a higher level than they need, but I'll end this post with a question I don't know the answer to:

Were the Cyber Schools that were the beneficiaries of the $6.4 million dollar overfunding from the less-than-diligent ADE required to return the extra funding? If so, no harm, no foul. But if they were allowed to keep the money, I have a problem with that.

No Pooch Left Behind

Today's Mother Goose & Grimm (If it's too small, click to enlarge it):

Arizona Charter Schools: The Good, The Bad, and The Costly, Part 6: Rep. Lujan Responds

by David Safier

(Here are parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.)

I emailed State Representative David Lujan (D-Phoenix) about HB2816, since he is the only Democratic sponsor of the bill, and said I would give him a chance to respond to my concerns. He wrote back within a few hours (I love my Democratic Reps when they care enough to respond so thoroughly and so quickly). So tonight, Lujan gets the last word. I'll chew over what he said and write about it tomorrow.

Hi David,

HB2816 makes changes to the TAPBI (technology assisted project based instruction) program. The TAPBI program was created by the legislature in 1998 to extend academic options beyond the traditional classroom. Of the 14 schools/school districts that are offering TAPBI programs, 7 are charter schools and 7 are traditional public school districts, including Tucson Unified, Mesa Unified, Tempe Union, Deer Valley Unified and Peoria Unified school districts. So HB2816 does not just apply to charter schools.

HB2816 does not provide any additional funding for TAPBI programs. The purpose of the bill is to address and fix issues that were raised in an Auditor General's Report that was conducted last year on the effectiveness of the TAPBI programs. For example, the Auditor General's report found that some of the TAPBI programs that had students who were enrolled in both traditional "brick-n-mortar" schools and a TAPBI program were receiving more funding than they were supposed to from the State. These were both traditional public schools and charter schools that were receiving too much money from the State. So one of the main provisions in HB2816 is to clarify that the ADM for students in TAPBI programs cannot exceed 1.0 students or 1.25 if they are enrolled in a JTED program. HB2816 also addresses concerns raised in the Auditor General's Report about academic accountability by making TAPBI programs more accountable to state standards.

HB2816 has not been a partisan bill. It passed 54-2 in the House and passed unanimously in the Senate Education Committee. I think it is a good bill to ensure that the TAPBI programs are held more accountable as was recommended by the Auditor General. I agree with you that we should be focusing on provided better funding to traditional public schools and I would not support this bill, nor likely would many of my Democratic colleagues, if this bill was going to take away scarce educational dollars.

If you have additional questions, please let me know and I will do my best to get answers. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond.

David Lujan
State Representative - District 15

Arizona Charter Schools: The Good, The Bad, and The Costly, Part 5: What's $6.4 Million Between Friends?

by David Safier

(Here are parts 1, 2, 3 and 4.)

"Six-point-four million? Safier is making this big deal about six-point-four million? I know that sounds like a lot, but as a percent of the state budget . . ."

The Tucson School District just put its reputation and its standing with the citizenry on the line by suggesting four schools had to be closed to make up some of the district's deficit. The process cost the School Board a huge hunk of credibility it couldn't afford to lose.

Anyone remember the savings projected for TUSD if all four schools were closed?

$1.8 million. One-point-eight million.

Six-point-four million is about three-and-a-third times more than one-point-eight million. Someone else had better tell TUSD, "Don't sweat six-point-four million extra given to Cyber Charter Schools. It's just a drop in the State's budget bucket." I, uh, I'm scared somebody at TUSD might hit me if I told 'em that.

Arizona Charter Schools: The Good, The Bad, and The Costly, Part 4: The 6.4 Million Dollar Question

by David Safier

(Here are parts 1, 2 and 3)

(Note: I plan to use a blogger's prerogative in my posts on Cyber Schools to jump to conclusions before I know the whole story. As I continue blogging on the topic, I'll get more information and correct any errors I've made. I'm an honorable man with a somewhat overactive superego, so it's difficult for me to lie, or even stretch the truth. If I am corrected, or I find something I wrote is incorrect myself, I'll make sure to let you readers know. Meanwhile, if you know something I don't, and especially if you are in the field, please add your comments. So far, my posts on the topic of charter schools have received comments from an employee of a Phoenix area bricks-and-mortar charter school, the CEO of Pinnacle Education (an Arizona Cyber School), and a cyber teacher from Pennsylvania. I plan to respond to their comments directly when I have time.)

I have more information about the $6.4 million overfunding of Charter Cyber Schools and what I believe is an attempt to write that overfunding into law.

I've been in email contact about this issue with Nancy Young Wright, who is my State Representative here in LD-26. (She stepped into Lena Saradnik's position when Lena had to step down for health reasons.) Wright has acted exactly as I hoped a Rep would act. She has taken my questions seriously (she has questions about the legislation herself) and forwarded my emails to other legislators who might be interested and knowledgeable. She also forwarded them to Jennifer Anderson, Legislative Research Analyst for the House Committee on Education (K-12). Thanks and kudos to Wright for performing her constituent duties so admirably.

From Anderson, I received a link to an October, 2007, Performance Audit of the Technology Assisted Project-Based Instruction Program (TAPBI) Program. It's a long report which I'll work my way through, but it will take time. Trying to pull out the and interpret the salient passages from these reports takes the diligence and concentration of a Talmudic scholar. If anyone wants to help me wade in, thank you in advance. I'd appreciate the assistance.

Right now, let's mull over a few passages from the short statement at the beginning of the Performance Audit.

Although statute limits funding to 1.0 ADM per student, errors resulted in about 6,800 TAPBI students being funded at 1.17 ADM each, on average, for a total overfunding of about $6.4 million.

This means, what I read in the Citizen article I cited in an earlier post is correct. Cyber Schools were overfunded by $6.4 million. It looks like the inference I drew from the article was correct as well -- that Cyber Schools were double dipping by taking more money for students who were also enrolled in other schools than they should have taken.

So I have a question: Did the state make these Cyber School refund the money -- the ones who overstated the amount they were allowed for students with dual enrollment? I'm pretty sure that a financial balancing is done between charter schools and the state toward the end of the school year, when the state figures out whether each school's projected enrollment was the same as the actual enrollment. If it was lower, the schools have to return the money. If it was higher, they get more from the state. (I think I've got this right. Someone chime in if I don't.) Was this $6.4 million part of that balancing act, and was the money returned to the state? I certainly hope so. If not, it sounds like someone is guilty of robbery of tax dollars, and the state is complicit in the theft.

Here is the next passage:

At $5,526 per pupil in fiscal year 2006, TAPBI schools spent $1,223 less per pupil than brick-and-mortar schools largely because TAPBI schools do not provide transportation and food services, and they have lower plant operation costs. However, costs could be further reduced, particularly for software and management agreements, and charter school administration.

I need to do more research to find out if Cyber Schools are given less than brick-and-mortar charter schools. I think the amount they receive is the same as what charter schools normally receive. But here, I'm way above my pay grade, and I need to dig for answers, or have one of you supply them to me.

What jumps out at me is the statement that the cost of Cyber Schooling "could be further reduced, particularly for software and management agreements, and charter school administration."

Cyber Schools are getting more money than they need, according to the audit. And yet, HB2816 wants to give them even more money than they're currently allowed to receive. Something is very wrong when the auditor suggests a reduction in funds, and legislators go for an increase. We're in a budget crisis, folks, and schools are starving for lack of adequate funding. Why would legislators want to increase funding for schools that are possibly getting too much money already?

I have a whole lot more to write about, but let me make one more point and save the rest for later. HB2816, which allows 125% of the normal allotment for students who have dual enrollment in a Cyber School and another school, is mainly sponsored by Republicans, many of whom are not normally friends of education. A few of them have Zero Ratings from the Arizona Education Association, which means to me, they vote against school funding. (For those of you who know legislators, the Republican sponsors are Rich Crandall, Kirk Adams, Mark Anderson, Judy Burges and Andrew Tobin.) Oddly, the one Democratic sponsor is David Lujan, who is a friend of education. Maybe he knows something I don't about the bill, but until I find out differently, I definitely question his judgement here.

So I ask myself, why would Republicans, many of whom are not fond of educational funding, want to increase funding for this one kind of school? I won't suggest that any of them stand to profit from the legislation, because I have no information to make me think that's true. But I do know that Charter Schools are the Republicans' baby, and maybe increased funding for what they consider "the anti-public school" is a completely different animal than what they love to refer to as "throwing money" at public schools.

More later.

Al Melvin Throws Down in Pima County

"It's like Hitler just invaded France," said a source in the moderate wing of the Pima County Republican Party of Joe Higgin's likely primary challenge of Ann Day for Supervisor in District 1.

That's not just Godwin's law in effect; my source only meant that a war that everyone knew was coming, and that many have been reluctant to fight, had finally arrived.

The war analogies kept coming, "what has been a cold war in the Party just went hot," said my deep throat.

As my source sees it, Al Melvin has just declared war on the establishment, pro-business, moderate Republicans with Higgin's entry into the race. Higgin is understood among Republican circles to be merely a stalking horse for Melvin with no hope of actually winning, but plenty of potential to make some joyful noise.

The newly declared war is for control of the Republican Party in Pima County. The establishment has been suffering the guerrilla attacks of the uber-conservatives for years now—taunting RINO hunts, primary challenges, a burgeoning far-right blog swarm, Graf's campaign against Kolbe and eventual nomination upon his retirement (and Kolbe's and the RNC's refusal to support that GOP nominee against a Democrat)—have all been skirmishes in the smoldering range war for the soul of the GOP in Pima and Arizona, more broadly.

Melvin's recruiting a movement conservative to challenge a GOP institution like Day was the last straw—or, more aptly, the assassin's bullet that set off a total war.

But perhaps Melvin has finally overplayed his hand. While Melvin is obviously hoping that a primary contest in the overlapping Supervisory District 1 will help stir his own base in his primary fight for Arizona Senate in LD 26 against moderate Republican Pete Hershberger, it could also finally prompt the establishment into a full scale counter-assault that could undermine Republican efforts to retake lost ground in LD 26.

If the GOP's civil war starts getting major press coverage, which a primary against Day is almost certain to attract, it could make what has been a quiet internal vendetta into a fully-fledged public feud. That could possibly distract or disgruntle voters in unrelated races where there is no primary challenge, like Bee's bid to retake CD 8 for the GOP.

Back to the military analogies: it's hard to take your objective without strategic unity of force. The Republican party nationally, state-wide, and now locally, is more divided against itself than it has been in recent memory as the cresting force of movement conservatism smashes into an establishment that has been willing to tolerate them only so long as they were winning elections.

And the movement conservatives haven't been winning, prompting movement conservatives to attack moderates even more vociferously in a zealous attempt at ritual purification of the Party to bring back the favor of the electoral gods. In reality, America is just fed up with the discredited anti-government politics of the far Right, even as anti-government dogma has become unquestionable in the GOP.

Voters' disgust plus a bewildering and vicious civil war in the Republican Party adds up to strategic advantage for Democrats at all levels. Most especially, Melvin's sneak attack on Ann Day (and by proxy the establishment of the Pima GOP) bodes well for the merry band of Democrats seeking to hold gains in LD 26.

Arizona Charter Schools: The Good, The Bad, and The Costly, Part 3: Cyber Schools Fight to Protect Funding

by David Safier

(For background on this post, link to Part 1 and Part 2 of this series.)

Last Tuesday, 800 Charter Cyber School advocates gathered in Phoenix to demand, "Don't cut our funding!" There has been a move afoot, they were told, to cut some 20% from funding for Cyber Schools. The event was covered by the Citizen and the Arizona Republic.

Who wants to cut funding for Cyber Schools? That's not clear. Certainly not Tom Horne, who spoke at the rally against funding cuts. The Citizen article says cuts have been "proposed during closed-door budget meetings."

After reading the articles a few times trying to figure out what the story was, I found a clue in The Citizen article. Apparently, "last year the auditor general concluded that the program [which included funding for Cyber Schools] had been overfunded by about $6.4 million." The reason is: "40 percent of distance learning students were concurrently enrolled in brick-and-mortar schools."

It makes sense that the state should spend no more than 100% for a student, right? If that student splits time between two schools, each school should get a piece of the pie. But I guess right now, Cyber Schools are claiming more than their due amount for some of these students.

I'm not good at reading bills, but I think this all revolves around HB 2816. In its current form, it states:

If a pupil is enrolled in a school district or charter school and also participates in the technology assisted project-based instruction program, the sum of the average daily membership, . . . shall not exceed 1.0.

Currently, in other words, each student should have one student's worth of funds following him/her, and right now $6.4 million is being double dipped by the Cyber Schools.

But there is a revision to that section of the bill adding this clause to the end of the previous sentence:

EXCEPT THAT IF THE PUPIL IS PARTICIPATING IN A JOINT TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION DISTRICT THE AVERAGE DAILY MEMBERSHIP SHALL NOT EXCEED 1.25.

I read that to mean, if a student is enrolled in a Cyber School, the state can kick in another 25% to the regular student allotment. (Here is the text of HB2816.)

This, I think, is what it's all about. Not that Cyber Schools are in danger of getting less money than other Charter Schools, but that students enrolled in both Cyber and brick-and-mortar schools should get 25% more.

If I'm right, the entire campaign by the industry's lobbyist, the Arizona Distance Education Association, and Tom Horne's righteous defense of Cyber School funding, is a lie, or, to be fair, a quarter truth. They are in fact defending extra funding going to Cyber Schools, when they claim they are trying to stop a cut in funds.

(For some background on the lobbying campaign, here is an email from the lobbying group sent to parents and others. It ends with a list of legislators to contact.)

The legislature, at a time of budget restraints, shouldn't be slipping in extra funding so that Cyber Schools can get more than is their fair share of state funds.

Increasing Hispanic Students' Interest in Tech Careers

by David Safier

An interesting article in CNN/Money: IBM Launches Effort to Address Shortage of Hispanic Students in Technology Careers. This program, if it's more than just talk, can have an important impact on Arizona and other areas with large Hispanic populations.

A few excerpts:

IBM (NYSE: IBM) today convened an inaugural summit titled "America's Competitiveness: Hispanic Participation in Technology Careers," an effort to bring together leaders in business, education, government, and community organizations to find ways to increase the number of Hispanic students pursuing careers in science, technology, engineering and math in the United States.

The effort is aimed at a looming problem resulting from the significant decline in the numbers of Hispanic students pursuing careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (or STEM).

----

To address the issue, IBM along with ExxonMobil, Lockheed Martin and Univision, and 150 other leaders will meet on May 5 and 6 in New York, to examine the ways the Hispanic community can improve their participation in STEM.

"The Hispanic community is one of the fastest growing in the country and young Latinos are rapidly joining our workforce," said U.S. Senator Robert Menendez. "It is important that they have the option to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and math, not only so they can fully develop their potential, but also so they can become professionals in areas that are vital to our economy, our security, our future as a nation. I salute IBM for this important initiative and hope this summit will open up new roads to success for our Hispanic youth."

----

Participants of this strategic gathering will be presented with newly released reports commissioned by the IBM International Foundation from respected research organizations like The Tomás Rivera Policy Institute and Public Agenda, which outline the challenges and opportunities to the nation's Hispanic community and their partners as regards the pursuit of STEM careers.

----

As a means of enabling Spanish-language-only parents to better communicate with teachers -- one of the needs outlined in the Public Agenda study -- IBM is today announcing that it will provide its automatic two-way, English-Spanish, e-mail translation and web translation software called ¡TradúceloAhora! to all U.S. schools at no cost to them.

Additionally, schools and nonprofit organizations will be given unlimited use of the ¡TradúceloAhora! software. And Hispanic older adults and those with disabilities can access the free translation software along with other free software called AccessibilityWorks that helps them view web pages in a customized format for easier and more effective reading and navigation on the web.

----

In response to the need to provide mentors for Hispanic students, IBM commits to expanding the MentorPlace program to focus on school districts in the U.S. with a significant number of Hispanic students, and matching them with IBM employees who can serve as their online mentors.

-- Additionally, IBM will expand its cascade mentoring program -
currently at the University of Arizona at Tucson - to at least 3
universities in California, New York and Texas.
-- The cascading mentoring program is an internet based system that
enables professional mentors, university students, and K-12 students to
engage in a three-way mentoring relationship through secure online
discussions. These discussions focus on past academic experiences and
exploration of what could be in terms of future goals and opportunities.
-- This program completed its third year in Tucson, Arizona and involved
IBM employees, the University of Arizona SHPE (Society for Hispanic
Professional Engineers) Student Chapter, and students from two high
schools.

Anyone out there from the IBM or UA communities who knows more about this effort?

Mule Train Mail: Mickey Duniho Writes an Open Letter to C. Huckelberry on Elections Security

Mr. Huckelberry:

I got wind of your latest memo on election security [pdf download] by reading about it in a Tucson Citizen article. Given that you mentioned my name in the memo, I would have expected to receive a courtesy copy of the memo. Maybe my copy went astray.

On page 14 of your memo you said that the Pima County Democratic Party Election Integrity Committee “has failed to provide a number of items that it agreed to provide in response to County requests”, including a copy of an election integrity manual that I drafted for the party. [Download ei_manualcomplete.doc ]

I don’t know about requests to the committee, but I provided a copy of the draft manual to the County as part of my deposition in November 2007. I think the manual was an exhibit at the trial in December 2007. John Moffatt was present at the November 2007 deposition, so I assumed that he got a copy of the manual at that time. To avoid having your copy of the manual get lost again in the County bureaucracy, I am sending it directly to you as an attachment to this email. I want to point out that this is a draft that has not yet been officially adopted by any part of the Arizona Democratic Party.

Your memo contains a number of good ideas for improving election integrity in Pima County, particularly your recommendations to improve procedures for chain-of-custody control of ballots, doubling the number of ballots to be hand counted, and adding the hand-count audit process to non-partisan elections. If you would also require sorting early ballots by precinct before hand counting them, it would greatly improve your recommended hand-count process.

Unfortunately, doubling the number of early ballots hand counted in the recent Presidential primary would not be an improvement. There were no Democratic ballots included in the hand count audit and a ridiculously minuscule number of Republican early ballots: 1 batch of the four percent of the ballots that had been set aside for hand counting. When I complained about this omission to Brad Nelson, he claimed he was following the Secretary of State’s manual. He did not read the manual correctly, and the writer of the manual did not read the statute (ARS 16.602.C.3) correctly. I hope that you will remedy this defect in future elections.

I am also attaching a file containing the 22 suggestions I offered to you in December 2007 in response to your call for public comment on election integrity. You recommended in your memo adopting two of these suggestions and part of a third. I have highlighted the adopted suggestions in green and key parts of the other suggestions in yellow. I hope you will reconsider your omission. All of these ideas are already operational procedures in Tucson City elections and would be excellent improvements to the County’s procedures.

Towards a Sane Energy Policy

Posted by: AzBlueMeanie

I am pleased that GOP Spartan agrees that the "McClinton Gas Tax Holiday Gimmick" is a bad idea and recognizes that the Bush administration's weak dollar policy and reckless fiscal mismanagement of our economy, including the doubling of our national debt over 7 years, is largely responsible for our present economic condition.

The last time gasoline was below $1 gallon was in February 1999, according to the Energy Information Agency.  The Clinton administration maintained a strong dollar policy.  1999 was the first time we had a balanced federal budget in over 30 years, and was the beginning of federal surpluses projected to pay off the national debt by 2010. 

GOP Spartan's solution to our energy problem, however, is more exploration for oil so that we can all continue doing what we have always done; no need for us to change our wasteful ways.  Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.

All of the presidential candidates at one time or another have stated that we need a "Manhattan Project" or an "Apollo Project" to develop new energy technologies to achieve energy independence.  The implication is that this new energy technology exists only in theory and is not presently commercially available, and that the federal government must invest billions of our tax dollars by way of tax incentives to auto manufacturers, for example, for research and development of this new energy technology.

This is misleading.  With respect to auto manufacturers, new energy technologies exist today in various stages of development and commercial use, and some of the technology has been with us for years.  It is opposition from the auto manufacturers and the oil industry which depend upon the gas internal combustion engine for their profits who have resisted and prevented the commercial availability of these new energy technologies over the years.

The majority of oil is refined into gasoline or diesel fuel for use in vehicles.  Increasing fuel efficiency and gas mileage is critical to reducing demand for oil.

In the late 1970s, a scientist by the name of Victor Wouk had developed plans for an experimental hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) for the newly created Department of Energy (DOE).  Working together with an electrical engineer by the name of David Arthurs, the pair used off the shelf components in an Opel GT which was able to achieve 75 m.p.g.  As I recall, it received much media attention at the time.  I understand that Mother Earth News still owns a 1980 version of the vehicle which reportedly achieved 84 m.p.g.

Around this same time, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in the Department of Transportation (DOT) began building and testing some 60 experimental vehicles under its Research Safety Vehicle (RSV) Program.  The experimental vehicle developed by NHTSA achieved 32 miles to the gallon in 1978 and was able to protect its occupants in a full frontal barrier impact at 50 mph and in side impact and rollover crashes at 40 mph without significant risk of occupant injury.  DOT was committed to demonstrating that fuel economy (CAFE) standards of 40-50 MPG could be met with cars that had 50 MPH crash protection (better than any car on the road today).  But when the Reagan Administration came into office, DOT suddenly reversed course and opposed higher CAFE standards.  The experimental RSV vehicles were ordered destroyed. Three vehicles were preserved at the headquarters of DOT until 1990, when the remaining vehicles were ordered destroyed.  If you are interested in learning more, see The Center for Auto Safety

The Clinton administration initiated the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) in 1993 with the auto manufacturers and DOE.  Auto manufacturers produced new HEV technologies under PNGV and began rapidly moving prototypes to their production lines.  The best known of these prototype vehicles was the General Motors EV1, the first commercially available all-electric car.  A little over 1,000 EV1s were produced by G.M. before the company pulled the plug on the project in 2002 allegedly due to "insufficient demand."  Others claim the EV1 was intentionally sabotaged by GM to preserve its more profitable line of vehicles, particularly gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs.  If you have not seen the documentary film "Who Killed the Electric Car?," I highly recommend it.  Who Killed the Electric Car? NOW | PBS

Clinton's PNGV program was replaced by the hydrogen-focused "Freedom Car" initiative of the Bush administration.  This technology is years away from safe, cost-effective commercial availability.

Advances in electric car technology have continued, however.  Most manufacturers now offer a "hybrid" vehicle with the Toyota Prius and Honda Civic hybrids leading the way in gas mileage performance.  There are also now hybrid retro-fit kits available for many vehicles.

In December 2007, Toshiba announced the commercial launch of the SCiB, the Super Charge lithium-ion Battery, a breakthrough rechargeable battery primarily targeting the industrial systems market that can recharge to 90% of full capacity in less than five minutes. The battery offers excellent safety and a long-life cycle of over 10 years, even under conditions of constant rapid charging.  Toshiba : Press Releases 11 December, 2007   Toshiba plans to initially make the quick-charging Super Charge lithium-ion Battery for electric bikes, forklifts, construction machinery and other industrial uses. Toshiba said the lithium-ion battery could be used in hybrid and electric cars by 2010.  The battery could spark mass-produced plug-in hybrids and even resurrect the idea of all-electric vehicles that use no fossil fuel.  Breakthrough battery for electric cars? - Green Machines- msnbc.com 

A Norwegian automaker, Think Global, backed by Silicon Valley investors does plan to sell an all-electric car in the United States that goes 110 miles without a charge and costs less than $25,000, beginning sometime in 2009.  All-electric car set for U.S. sales in '09 - Green Machines- msnbc.com

India's largest auto manufacturer, Tata Motors, in partnership with Luxembourg-based MDI corporation, is set to start production of the world's first commercial compressed air powered vehicle, the CityCAT.  6000 zero-emissions Air Cars are scheduled to hit Indian streets in August of 2008.  The $12,700 CityCAT, one of a handful of planned Air Car models, can hit 68 mph and has a range of 125 miles.  It only takes a few minutes for the CityCAT to refuel at gas stations equipped with custom air compressor units.  MDI says it should cost around $2 to fill the car's carbon-fiber tanks with 349 liters of air at 4359 psi.  Drivers will also be able to plug into an electrical outlet and use the car's built-in compressor to refill the tanks in about four hours (the Air Car will not be available in the United States). Air Car - First Air-Powered Car - Zero Emissions - Behind the Tech - Popular Mechanics (June 2007); The Air Car (Business Week March 19, 2007).

I would be among the first to agree that these small innovative vehicles would be unattractive to most American consumers.  But it is possible to build an attractive electric car.  Tesla Motors builds an all-electric roadster that is the equal of any sports car. Tesla Motors

My point is that innovative new energy technologies already exist and are in commercial production.  We are not starting from theory and do not need a "Manhattan Project" or "Apollo Project" costing billions of tax dollars to research and develop these new energy technologies. What is needed is a new federal mandate, similar to Clnton's PNGV. to require the auto manufacturers to begin production of a product line which incorporates these commercially available new energy technologies. (Why not an updated EV1 incorporating the new Toshiba battery technology?)  One would assume that these new energy technologies could easily be improved upon by American ingenuity to meet Americans' particular tastes in vehicles.

Americans' "can do" spirit can achieve any national goal we set our minds to achieve.  We can reduce our dependence on oil.  But those industries which have a vested financial interest in maintaining the status quo have been preventing such progress for years.  By doing so, they are undermining America's national security and bankrupting our country.

Update May 7, 2008:

While waiting for my car to be serviced, I read a recent issue Of Automobile Magazine that featured a review of the Tesla Motors all-electric roadster as its cover story.  2008 Tesla Roadster - Latest News, Features, and Reviews - Automobile Magazine

I also ran across a glossy fold-out ad for Chevrolet's concept car, the Chevy Volt.  The Volt uses what Chevrolet calls its E-Flex propulsion system, and is designed to run on biofuel (E-85 flex fuel), home electricity, or hydrogen fuel.  The ad shows a very sporty compact car design, similar to vehicles currently on the road.  (See, it can be done).  The ad says this concept car "could" be manufactured and sold within five years or "as soon as lithium-ion batteries are ready for automotive use."  I found this article about the Chevy Volt which premiered at the 2007 Detroit Auto Show.  Detroit Auto Show: It's here. GM's plug-in hybrid is the Chevy Volt Concept - AutoblogGreen

I suspect the production lag time actually has more to do with the hydrogen fuel component than the lithium-ion battery (which is already in commercial use in Japan). Why not build a hybrid version with the E-85 flex fuel and electric motor option, or an all-electric version?  Add the hydrogen fuel component to later year models when that technology becomes commercially practicable.

What this demonstrates is that auto manufacturers currently possess the technology to build fuel efficient vehicles and vehicles which do not run on gasoline.  It can be done.

News Flash: McCain Plans to Abandon Israel!

by David Safier

Sorry for poaching on your territory, AZ Blue Meanie, but the English teacher in me couldn't let McCain's latest retracted gaff slip by without my notice.

McCain said basically (I'll include the exact quote later) that if we can end our need for mideast oil, we'll never have to send a soldier there again. Then he "clarified" the statement by saying he was referring to the Gulf War, not Iraq.

Reporters need to listen more carefully. Regardless of the war he was referring to, McCain said the only reason we would ever have a soldier fight in that region is to keep the oil spigots open.

So, Mr. McCain, if we're energy independent and Iran gets nuclear weapons, we won't send soldiers, right?

And, Mr. McCain, if any mideast nation attacks Israel, by land or using weapons of mass destruction, that's Israel's problem, because we're energy independent, right?

Read his exact words:

"My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East."

In the Old Testament, there is a story about Esau selling his birthright for a mess of pottage. In the 2008 campaign, McCain sold out Israel for a gallon of biodiesel.

I'm not over-parsing his words, just reading them carefully. If Obama had used McCain's words, they would be on an endless cable news loop, repeated over and over and over, analyzed and reanalyzed, condemned by everyone who wants to sink Obama's campaign. But McCain? No problem. He issued a clarification which explains exactly nothing, so everything's OK. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.