• NASA/JPL/University of Arizona

Otto Ross at the morning daily reports that the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, which has the UA's HiRISE camera aboard, is having some computer problems:

The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter carrying UA's HiRISE camera is entering its ninth week in a precautionary safe-mode, facing its greatest challenge since it launched in 2005.

Engineers are busily working to safeguard the orbiter against an unlikely but potentially fatal scenario that was discovered when the orbiter unexpectedly put itself into safe-mode for the fourth time this year.

"It's very unlikely but (the MRO) is a precious asset for the American people and we take it very seriously to make sure we protect it," said MRO Project Manager Jim Erickson.

Green Party candidate Mary DeCamp, who is seeking a City Council seat in Ward 3, has sent us her campaign platform. Check it out:

Global situation: Peak oil & Global warming. Petroleum reserves are shrinking & are harder to access while the planet is heating up and climate patterns are changing.

Local response: Retrofit Tucson's aging housing inventory. Install energy-efficient windows & doors, weather-strip, paint roofs white, & blow insulation into attics.

How? Hire mentors to work with neighborhood volunteers interested in upgrading their properties. Form work teams & visit each member's home on a rotating basis to perform upgrades.

Generally, I avoid the comments on StarNet stories because most of them are made by morons who have no idea what they're talking about.

Here's an example: I was looking at some of the recent stories about Prop 200 and came across this gem by "James O. (oienjmo)," who suggested a long list of cuts that could be made to fund police and fire. Never mind that the grand total of everything that he lists comes out to—well, I'm not going to do the exact math because it would be a waste of time. But near as I can tell, it's less than $10 million a year, which isn't much when you consider that Prop 200 would cost an estimated $63 million a year.

Anyways, that's not my point. The thing I found amusing is that James O. included in his list a $14,922 contribution to 88-Crime. Yes, that's right: He wants to fund cops by cutting a program that helps people report on criminals. Genius!

The rest of James O.'s list, after the jump:

A new Cronkite/Eight Poll shows that the electorate is split on Gov. Jan Brewer, with 39 percent approving of her performance and 39 percent disapproving of her performance. Even more splitting: 40 percent of Republicans disapprove of the job she's done, while 40 percent of Democrats approve of the job she's done.

Brewer still trails Attorney General Terry Goddard, the likely Democratic gubernatorial candidate next year, in the approval ratings. The survey showed that 55 percent of voters approve of the job that Goddard has done, while 17 percent disapprove and 28 percent said they didn't know enough about him to make a call either way.

Meanwhile, two-thirds of voters want some kind of health-care reform out of Washington this year. They were mostly split on the idea of a public option, with nearly half—49 percent—saying they didn't want a public option, 44 percent said they did want a public option and 7 percent saying they had no opinion.

If you care about such things, there are also numbers for Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio

We've noted that early ballots are going the Democrats' direction in this year's city election.

But that doesn't mean the incumbents—Nina Trasoff and Karin Uhlich—are safe. We've heard some rumblings that the races are tightening up in the final week of the campaign.

One problem for Trasoff and Uhlich: A general anti-incumbent wave sweeping the country. Politico reports:

While political observers are focused on the outcome of the Nov. 3 gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey for early insights into the 2010 midterms, it's in City Hall where the most ominous trend is emerging.

Some incumbent mayors have already lost their races. Others have held on to win—or are likely to win next week—with greatly diminished margins from their previous re-election bids. Either way, local incumbents are bleeding badly after being buffeted by the pressures of high unemployment, low tax revenues and a volatile, impatient electorate.

On the other hand:

Some veterans of mayoral politics caution against reading too much into the outcomes of local races. Instead of reflecting national trends, they argue, mayoral elections often have more to do with the mechanics of local government and the delivery of city services.

"There's a little bit of variety in these local races that makes generalization a bit problematic," said former Indianapolis Mayor Steve Goldsmith.

Still, there's considerable disgust among voters toward the City Council, especially regarding Rio Nuevo. And while there is some good news coming out of downtown—such as the announcement yesterday that Kwang C. An wants to open a restaurant on Congress Street—it's overshadowed by hard-hitting pieces like Rob O'Dell's recent piece on the failure to follow through on a Rio Nuevo audit, which makes Trasoff and Uhlich look like dolts.

Another proposal from Green Party candidate Mary DeCamp, who is running in Ward 3 City Council race:

Sticking with my proclivity to offer pro-active and constructive input instead of negative reaction, I would propose we move to proportional representation and instant runoff voting in our elections.

Right now people stick with the two major parties (Republocrats and/or Demicans - both serve the big business & government interests instead of the people's) because that is where the power is. If you ask most folks, they resoundingly endorse the Green Party's 10 key values (grassroots democracy, social justice, ecological wisdom, non-violence, decentralization, gender equity, community-based economics, respect for diversity, personal & global responsibility, and future focus/sustainability). But they don't want to register Green because they think the party doesn't have enough political muscle.

If everyone who endorsed Green Party values would switch their voter registration on the same day, you would see

Well, that was quick.

After we directed Tucson Association of Realtors President Lisa Suarez to a post on the Gila Courier that purported to be her unedited op-ed that the Arizona Daily Star didn't have the guts to print, Suarez wrote to let us know: "Not only did I not authorize that version, those are not my words."

Perhaps the reason the Arizona Daily Star did not print that version is that they never reviewed that version. This much I can say: Editorial Page editor Ann Brown told me tonight that she had no recollection of any reference to Mike Letcher's vodka budget in any drafts of Suarez' op-ed.

At any rate, shortly after we revealed that Suarez had nothing to do with the editorial at Gila Courier, the post was removed from "Arizona's leading political news site" with no mention that they had either fabricated a column or been the victim of a hoax from someone with the pro-Prop 200 campaign.

If you want to see the version that ran on Gila Courier, you can find it way down in the comments section on this post. Given that it was not a column by Suarez, Nate1980 (who posted the bogus column here) will perhaps withdraw his request that I respond to its content?

The folks at local blog Gila Courier published an op-ed defending Prop 200 this morning that carried the byline of Lisa Suarez, the president of the Tucson Association of Realtors, which has contributed the largest funding to the Public Safety First Initiative.

Gila Courier claimed to be publishing an op-ed that had been rejected by the Arizona Daily Star. A similar version appeared in the Star this morning.

Saurez tells us via e-mail that she does not stand behind the version of the column that appears on the Gila Courier site:

I am not aware of any other posting of my op-ed, and if one is circulating it is certainly without my permission. The only opinion I stand by is the one I submitted to the Arizona Daily Star published this morning.

The op-ed at the Gila Courier site, which was also posted by Nate1980 in a comment thread here at The Range, appears to accuse City Manager Mike Letcher of having a drinking problem:

The state of Arizona just released it’s “consensus revenue projections” (Joint Legislative Budget Committee report dated 22 OCT 09) through Fiscal Year 2013. Guess what? The State is demonstrating that our City can reasonably expect to receive $2 trillion dollars in revenues between now and then. More than enough to even cover Letcher’s vodka budget for a month.

Early voting in the city election continues to climb, but almost two-thirds of those citizens with early ballots have yet to make up their minds.

Here's the latest, with numbers as of today:

A total of 68,102 ballots had been mailed to city voters. Of those, 24,802 ballots had been returned, which comes out to roughly 36 percent.

Party breakdown:

• 32,313 of those ballots went to Democrats; 12,249 of those ballots had been cast, for a return rate of roughly 38 percent.

• 21,683 of those ballots went to Republicans; 8,249 of those ballots had been cast, for a return rate of roughly 38 percent.

• 369 of those ballots went to Libertarians; 115 of those ballots had been cast, for a return rate of roughly 31 percent.

• 162 of those ballots went to Greens; 62 of those ballots had been cast, for a return rate of roughly 38 percent.

• 13,575 ballots had been sent to people who aren't registered with any of the above parties; 4,127 had been cast, for a return rate of roughly 30 percent.

More thoughts on early voting here.

So all those Prop 200 supporters who said I was taking Nick Dranias' words out of context last week when I reported that the Goldwater Institute was sending out an op-ed critical of the Public Safety First Initiative can now take a look at his full piece, which is running today in the Arizona Daily Star. They'll notice that he says things like:

Prop. 200 is marketed as an effort to focus Tucson on giving priority funding to core local government services — law enforcement, emergency medical services and fire protection — in order to generate better response times. But the truth is it would just mandate more government spending with no strings attached.

There's nothing in Prop. 200 that limits spending on the new employees to existing tax money. And there's no guarantee that the increased spending needed to fulfill the police and fire mandates would come from current money being spent on non-essential city services. Somewhere, somehow, Tucson taxpayers will have to pay the bill and you can bet that will eventually come in the form of higher taxes.

Perhaps this major new expense could be justified if Prop. 200 included a strong mechanism for ensuring it would actually result in improved public safety. But there is no consequence if the funding does not, in fact, result in better service.