Macumber didn't confess, but was he wimpy? <nbsp/>

(PNI) Regarding The Republic's series last week on William Macumber, "Justice Delayed":

Studies suggest that people who confess to crimes that they did not commit (a) have "wimpy" personalities, (b) have an exaggerated respect for authority (perhaps due to an exaggerated need for authority to help them fight their battles), (c) cannot recall what they were doing at the time of the crime, and (d) are presented by the police with overwhelming evidence against them. So, they confess that they might have done it, which authorities take that they "did it."

Now, William Macumber did not confess. But he showed exaggerated respect for authority when he believed what the police told him about "his" palm print being on the victim's car. And he apparently could not recall what he had been doing at the time of the crime. Also, the evidence against him, as presented by law enforcement, was overwhelming.

Meanwhile, Macumber took a polygraph test. Are people with wimpy personalities, in situations such as this, more likely to fail polygraph tests? The conservative writer, editor and publisher William F. Buckley once confessed that he had lied during a polygraph test -- and passed it. He attributed his success to an unyielding belief in the rightness of his cause.

--Richard P. Sibley, Gilbert

Let's be fair on migration

Letting people stay in this country when they came here illegally is grossly unfair to people who came into this country legally.

I have some friends who came to this country legally and had to wait 12 years to get a work visa, so tell me what is fair about letting people that came to this country illegally stay here.

I agree that the immigration system is broken, but letting people stay in this country when they came here illegally is not fixing the problem.

--Gil Fidler, Gilbert

Prop. 201 indeed a start

Regarding "Phoenix's Prop. 201 is no pension fix, but it's a start" (Opinions, Friday):

I've known Republic columnist Bob Robb for 30 years now. I'm always interested in his opinion. I was glad that Bob overwhelmingly endorsed a "yes" vote on Proposition 201, the Phoenix Pension Reform Act (or at least, for Bob, it was overwhelming support).

Bob rightfully states that Proposition 201 does not solve every problem Phoenix faces nor does it solve every problem Bob would like to fix. But, as he correctly states, it is a good step in the right direction.

Fifteen business and community leaders spent thousands of hours looking at 43 possible options for pension reform and came to the conclusion that Proposition 201 is fair to employees, fair to taxpayers and saves taxpayers $596 million over the next two decades, and it raises the retirement age appropriately.

Yes, you can argue that the highly qualified actuaries who made the savings projections are off -- maybe it saves only $594 million or maybe it's even $598 million, but it's a lot of money that taxpayers save and it's the right thing to do.

I'm hopeful that someday Bob finds one program that will solve every issue the city currently faces or might face in the future, but I doubt that.

Prop. 201 is the right thing to do. It's fair, and it saves a lot of taxpayer money. I urge every taxpayer to vote yes on Prop. 201.

--Rick DeGraw, Phoenix

The writer is co-chairman of the Phoenix Pension Reform Committee.

Open up charter finances

Clint Bolick's recent "defense" of the opacity of charter schools' finances is absurd ("Charter schools a model," Opinions, Thursday).

He suggests that financial reporting is an undue burden. Let's see, we're talking about a couple of key strokes in their accounting software program and e-mailing a report. He also seems to be suggesting that the absence of reporting contributes to the schools' student performance -- no comment needed.

What is critical is that these schools are using public money, and as "shareholders," we, the public, are entitled to know how our money is being spent.

--Michael Jonas,

Scottsdale

Can't have it 2 ways, GOP

I am confused with claims made by Sen. John McCain and the Republican Party. If the government does not create jobs, then why is Sen. McCain running around saying how many jobs will be lost in Arizona if the government cuts defense spending?

These jobs that will be lost exist only because of government spending. I thought only the private sector creates jobs?

The right will argue that these jobs were created by the private sector. Yes, they were created by the private sector with the government paying for them. Without the government spending, these jobs never would have existed in the first place. Ike was right.

--Rodney Iverson, Mesa

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Maybe Mitt Romney Didn't Win Iowa (The Atlantic Wire)

A Iowa caucus goer claims the Republican Party's vote totals were off by 20 votes in favor of Mitt Romney, a error that if fixed would be enough to swing the final tally to Rick Santorum. Edward True says he helped to count the votes at the tiny 53-person caucus in Moulton, Iowa, and claims that Romney got just two votes. But when he checked the state party's website later, they credited Romney with 22 votes in Moulton. Since Romney was declared the winner by just 8 votes, that mistake would have been enough to the swing the state in his favor.

Related: Attention Must Be Paid! (To Rick Santorum)

GOP officials say True is not a precinct captain and has no business talking about results, which won't be fully certified for another week anyway. Meanwhile, Santorum claims that he was told by party officials that there was a different 21-vote discrepancy in his favor, meaning the final vote tally is only off by one. 

Related: The Polls That Got Iowa Right

In either case, it doesn't really matter  — unless maybe you had money riding on it — because winning or losing is not the point. The fact that Santorum could have beaten Romney is all any one cares about at the moment. Eight more votes won't change the outcome in New Hampshire or South Carolina and once the nomination is secure, one of them will be forced to drop out anyway. (Even at a brokered convention, which will never happen, Iowa would only send 25 delegates and it's not a winner-take-all state.) So it's not exactly a Bush v. Gore situation. However, True is also a Ron Paul supporter and everyone wants to see Romney brought down a peg, so if you're looking to indulge in some primary conspiracy theories, knock yourself out.

View the original article here

Ron Paul blasts Donald Trump: ‘I didn’t know that he had an ability to … anoint people’ (Daily Caller)

Donald Trump’s attempt to re-enter the Republican presidential nomination contest — not as a candidate but this time as a kingmaker — seems to be wearing on the pundit class, and has also rankled Ron Paul. The GOP Texas congressman told CNN’s Candy Crowley on Sunday’s “State of the Union” that a Trump-moderated debate would hurt the brand of the Republican Party.

“One of the concerns that I had was really how he was treating the Republican Party of Iowa,” Paul said. “And he didn’t treat them well because he had agreed to come to their biggest fundraiser of the year because he was talking about running. When he changed his mind about not running he canceled on them. They had to cancel the event. And that was a bit of an insult to them.”

Paul also claims he has picked up the support of many of Trump’s early supporters in the Hawkeye State.

“I’ve gotten a lot of good favorable responses from the people of Iowa, even the people in the party that appreciated the fact that I mentioned, that because they were very unhappy with the way he treated them by just stiffing them and walking away from it — and they were left holding the bag,” he added.

Watch:

Predictably, Paul took issue with Trump’s position on the Federal Reserve, suggesting that its abolition would hurt Trump’s financial empire. And he questioned the “Apprentice” star’s assumed kingmaker role.

“I don’t quite understand it,” he said. “I don’t understand the marching to his office. I mean I didn’t know that he had an ability to lay on hands, you know, and anoint people. … He probably doesn’t like my position on the Federal Reserve. You know, easy credit for developers and investors. You know, they like easy credit and they like the Federal Reserve and they like that for bailing out.”

Follow Jeff on Twitter

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Ron Paul blasts Donald Trump: 'I didn't know that he had an ability to ... anoint people'

Will: Cain had a 'fundamentally disrespectful approach to the selection of presidents'

That was Herman Cain: The unlikely rise and fall of Herman Cain

White House denies reports Obama knew of 'Fast and Furious' in 2010

Caincluded

View the original article here