Editorial: Fire season's going to be bad, unless it's not

Sometimes the headlines just write themselves. There's "Dangerous fire season forecast." Or this, "Conditions create a perfect storm for wildfire peril." Or, if you sense readers are ready for a change of pace, there's this: "For fast relief of dia ..." oops, wrong note.

What you have to know, regardless of the headline, is that no matter what has happened the previous four, five or six months, the experts are going to issue dire warnings about the fire season.

If, for example, the winter has been extremely dry, warnings about "tinderbox conditions" would be prominent. So prominent, in fact, that you're probably thinking, "Man, I wish it would have rained more last winter so the fire danger wouldn't be so high."

But you'd only be saying that because you haven't been paying attention. When it rains a lot, you see, it encourages growth among the desert plants, exponentially increasing the fuel load.

To review: Dry winter, bad fire season. Wet winter, bad fire season.


See if you can figure out this math equation:

(E=MC2 [.)

It looks complex, but take it from someone who didn't go to MIT, it's not. What we have is this: Election Equals McCain Campaign On Steroids, followed by the number of times McCain's office has contacted the Miner via email each year since the last election. In the five previous years, the Miner received eight emails from McCain's office. This year, that number is 4,361.

As an added bonus, many candidates are just like Sen. John McCain in that they really like to have people send emails on their behalf in election years. One of those people is Ann Kirkpatrick, who is running against McCain.

I'm not a big fan of McCain's, but the Kirkpatrick emails critical of everything John McCain has ever done provide a reminder that occasionally he gets it right. I'm not sure what his overall percentage is for getting it right, but for everything Kirkpatrick points out, McCain is batting 100 percent.

That would make Kirkpatrick 100 percent wrong, the kind of consistency I've come to expect from elected officials.

One of the more recent complaints about McCain is that he is "turning his back on Arizona women and families again" because he doesn't support equal pay laws. Kirkpatrick says that Arizona woman are paid 84 percent of what their male counterparts earn.

If that's the case, why do men in Arizona have jobs?

There's a disconnect there somewhere when it comes to liberals and money. If I owned a business and could save 16 percent on payroll simply by hiring women, I'd do it. Every business owner in the state, given the opportunity to cut payroll costs while otherwise maintaining the status quo in the business, will opt for that.