The Show for June 24, 2026: Tohono O'odham Nation vs. Trump, the real outside temp and more

The Tohono O’odham Nation’s sovereign land spans the U.S.-Mexico border. Now they're suing the Trump administration over a proposed border wall through their territory. Plus, why does the weather report say 112 when your phone says 107?

Transcript

UNDERWRITER: KJZZ’s original production The Show is supported by Banner Health, Arizona’s largest non-profit healthcare system. Last year, Banner reinvested more than $1.1 billion in community health and charity care. Banner Health, non-profit for Arizona. bannerhealth.com/nonprofitforaz.

LAUREN GILGER: Hi, I’m Lauren Gilger, co-host of The Show, an original production from KJZZ. Every weekday, we bring you the latest news and culture from across the state. You can find much more at theshow.kjzz.org. Here’s today’s episode.

GILGER: Good morning and welcome to The Show here on KJZZ 91.5 in Phoenix. I’m Lauren Gilger. Coming up, we meet the leader of Bisbee Pride, one pride organization in Arizona that’s thriving as many others are in dire financial straits. And why is the forecast on your phone always lower than the one on TV or on the radio?

But first, the Tohono O’odham sovereign tribal land spans the U.S.-Mexico border for about 62 miles. And as a result, they’ve worked with the federal government for years on immigration enforcement within their territory, from surveillance and cameras to joint patrols and checkpoints. But now they say the feds have gone too far, and they’re suing the Trump administration over its plans to build a 30-foot tall border wall that cuts straight through their land. KJZZ’s Gabriel Pietrorazio is covering it, and spoke with the tribe’s chairman. He’s in studio now to tell us more. Good morning, Gabe.

GABRIEL PIETRORAZIO: Good morning, Lauren.

GILGER: All right. So, the tribe is seeking an immediate injunction from a judge here to stop these border wall plans from going forward. What’s their complaint?

PIETRORAZIO: Essentially, there’s three main points of the complaint. The first being that essentially, the 2.8 million-acre reservation would be somewhat diminished by the construction of the border wall, that the wall itself would actually encroach upon their sovereign lands that traverses the international boundary with Mexico. One of the other issues is that essentially, these contractors who would be hired by the federal government through the Department of Homeland Security would essentially be deemed trespassers in the eyes of the nation. And so, that would be another tack against them.

And the third is essentially bringing attention to a lot of the cultural and natural resources that could be destroyed. As we had seen during the first Trump administration, there’s a historic playbook that had unfolded with the destruction of Monument Hill, which is an important place to O’odhams and actually Apaches in the region, and that was bulldozed, essentially blasted this Monument Hill as part of the original, first border wall during the initial Trump administration. And so, now we’re seeing a resurgence of that. For this long time, there hasn’t been, there is no wall. If you go to the 62-mile boundary between Mexico and the Tohono O’odham Nation, you’ll see there is no wall. It’s just different blockades or barriers for vehicles and things of that sort, some barbed wire, but it’s largely undisturbed as it sits today. So, this is seen as an aggression, aggressive, excuse me, attempt by the federal government to fortify this swath of land that is within the state of Arizona but has been O’odham land for thousands of years at this point.

GILGER: Right, exactly. So, I mean, a lot of the debate here, right, Gabe, has to do with if the tribe was consulted, how they work together to plan this or not plan this. I want to play a little exchange here between Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego, who actually asked the DHS Secretary, Markwayne Mullin, who is Cherokee, about this in his confirmation hearing not too long ago.

RUBEN GALLEGO: And so, I think it’s important that we reestablish tribal sovereignty. And I hope, because of your background, you’ll understand, appreciate that.

MARKWAYNE MULLIN: I respect tribal sovereignty, and there’s a lot of technology. Now, we do have a job to secure the border, but we will work with with tribal nations, because there’s there’s other ways to have a physical barrier where you can have technology there, too. And I don’t think anybody would complain about that. But yes, you know my background, we have worked on tribal issues a lot, and I appreciate your passion. And I have a lot of good friends in Arizona.

PIETRORAZIO: And so, that was back in March, so the filing occurred just last week here in June. And what essentially arose from the lawsuit from the nation was that essentially, the Department of Homeland Security under the newly confirmed Markwayne Mullin as secretary came to the nation and said, "Hey, we’re going to essentially grant contracts by the end of this month to essentially build this wall." And the nation was very upset with that because, you know, they didn’t feel like they were being consulted at all. There’s a lot of meetings and discussions with nation leadership in Washington with the Tucson Sector Border Patrol chief, with other entities within the federal government, but as Chairman Verlon Jose told me recently, there hasn’t been any sort of official consultation between the U.S. and the Tohono O’odham Nation. Let’s hear a little bit about what he had to say to you.

VERLON JOSE: They were going to issue the contract at the end of this month. So, what were we to do? Was there consultation? No. Not consultation as we would have expected.

GILGER: So, tell us a little bit more about what the chairman had to say, Gabe. I mean, it’s kind of hard to get a one of these kind of longer interviews with him, right? And and this is an ongoing issue. What did he have to say?

PIETRORAZIO: I think it’s one of the most fundamental issues facing the Tohono O’odham Nation for a long time. It came to me that Chairman Jose really cares about preserving the land, but at the same time, cracking down on these irregular crossings. And he even told me that about $3 million of the nation’s funds go directly to addressing the immigration issue on the border from their own discretionary funds, essentially. So, it speaks a lot to an extra burden and costs that the nation incurs as a result of its geography of where it’s situated.

And I think they historically look at it through the lens of this, the land of the nation, although there’s a reservation, a 2.8 million-acre reservation here on the U.S. side, their land extends into Sonora, Mexico. And because of the Gadsden Purchase [in] 1854, that led to the eventual defining line after the Mexican-American War [in] 1848, that they were severed. Some of those relationships were severed, but people still cross there regularly, so they care about the wall, or they care about immigration, but they don’t feel that a wall is the right solution to address the irregular crossings. And they said that according to the data from the federal government, they’ve seen crossings decrease, at least through the reservation itself, by over 95% or so percent, roughly. So, in the last couple of years. And so, it’s working in that respect that there is relationships, there is communication with DHS and the checkpoints, and the sensors, and the cameras, and the and the, you know, cooperative raids, essentially, within the nation, the Shadow Wolves, as people know, the O’odham-only border custom border patrol office there that goes around and does a lot of this law enforcement activities on the reservation. So, there’s a lot of communication and collaboration, but they just feel that the wall is is unnecessary in stopping that.

GILGER: Right. They’ve already seen such a drop. And it’s such a unique situation, Gabe. In the last minute or so here, tell us about what this says or means about tribal sovereignty more generally, right? I’m I’m sure that is a a conversation that’s going to be a part of this.

PIETRORAZIO: For sure. I think that the question of sovereignty of whether the nation has a right to say that, "Hey, our lands are our own and that the federal government cannot do anything on them," will be at the core of the the question of whether this preliminary injunction will be issued and granted, essentially. And we had seen that some of the sacred sites like Las Playas and Taglio, which are ancestral lands that are not on the reservation, were not respected, and there’s concern that there are spots here on the reservation that they need to protect. As Chairman Jose told me, there’s places that they can’t even tell the federal government because they’re that sacred and important, that we can’t show people or document it in a way because we have to protect those resources. So, in summary, I think what we’re seeing is a real challenge here of whether the federal government will uphold the sovereignty and the rights of the Tohono O’odham Nation to preserve its boundaries.

GILGER: Yeah. All right. Lots of eyes on this case, I’m sure. All right, KJZZ’s Gabriel Pietrorazio joining us, covers indigenous affairs for us. Gabe, thanks so much. Appreciate it.

PIETRORAZIO: Thanks for having me.

GILGER: Pride organizations across Arizona are struggling right now. Phoenix Pride filed for bankruptcy, Tucson Pride canceled their festival and dissolved the organization, Flagstaff Pride scaled back their yearly festival. It’s a trend that’s affected pride organizations in fact across the country as corporate sponsorships have subsided under pressure from the Trump administration’s anti-DEI efforts. But at least one pride organization in the state seems to be thriving. Bisbee Pride took place over the weekend in the artsy Southern Arizona town and organizers estimate that the three day community event this year was bigger than ever, bringing out more than 7,000 people to celebrate. So, with me now to talk about Bisbee Pride and the non-profit’s lasting legacy is Bisbee Pride President and CEO Ramon Garcia. Good morning, Ramon. Thanks for coming on the show.

RAMON GARCIA: Good morning, Lauren. Thanks for having me.

GILGER: All right. So, let’s just first talk about Bisbee Pride as an organization. How did it begin?

GARCIA: So, Bisbee Pride began about 22 years ago. It started out really as a group of friends hosting a potluck. And today it’s grown into a non-profit that has one of the largest celebrations in Bisbee throughout the year, and what’s become now the last standing pride celebration in Southern Arizona.

GILGER: Right. Right. So, we’ve seen, as I mentioned, other pride organizations across the state, really across the country struggle, some dissolve entirely, some are scaling back. Why do you think that has not happened for Bisbee Pride?

GARCIA: I really think it’s based on our philosophy. I think that a lot of organizations and and pride celebrations across the country relied heavily on corporate sponsorship. In Bisbee, we rely heavily on community sponsorship and support. We don’t have corporate backing. We, our business communities, our neighbors, our friends throughout the year pitch in and and that’s how we really have an event. Additionally, unlike a lot of other pride celebrations where they are gated events where you have to pay a fee to get into a venue for a set amount of hours and and watch and and kind of be closed off. In Bisbee, we’re an open, free event for the most part. We encourage people to come and go as they please. We encourage people to patronize our businesses, our restaurants, they stay in the hotels. They can come and go to their their places where they’re staying throughout the day, get out of the heat, though I think one of the attractions for Bisbee is that we tend to be about 10 10° cooler than most places, so we have a lot of people.

GILGER: We’ll take that.

GARCIA: Exactly.

GILGER: Right. So, I mean, it sounds like you really emphasize the community part of this, Ramon, like you’re partnering with local businesses, the local government there, local churches even.

GARCIA: Absolutely. I mean, I think one of the things that that Bisbee Pride is is, aside from a celebration of the LGBTQ community, it’s really a celebration of Bisbee. And we have pride in Bisbee. But, yes, we have, you know, wide community support. We partner with churches, with religious organizations, with civic organizations. You know, the city has always been very good about working with us in open spaces and and during our parade to be able to accomplish things. So, you know, Bisbee’s, I think, its endurance has been because of its uniqueness and and the way we we do things.

GILGER: Yeah. Do you think some maybe bigger pride organizations, events have have lost their sense of purpose as, you know, that it’s like ticketed and gated off and, you know, they’re dealing with these major corporate sponsorships and the losses of those?

GARCIA: I think that, you know, ultimately, the the main goal is still there. But, yes, I think the influence and and the the reliance on on corporate dollars has really taken away from, you know, what pride was was meant to be, which was a celebration of community.

GILGER: Yeah. You’re from Bisbee, right?

GARCIA: I am. I’m native. I grew up here, went to school here, spent time away, went to college at the U of A, worked throughout different parts of the country, but ultimately chose to come back.

GILGER: Yeah. So, as you’ve been leading this organization for quite a while now, I mean, have you seen that this event grow? I mean, it sounds like not just folks from Bisbee are coming to this anymore.

GARCIA: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. You know, we Bisbee Pride was started 22 years ago because there was kind of a lull in tourism during this time of year. And they was trying to figure out what what could help, what could encourage people to come to Bisbee. This group of friends in the gay community decided, "Well, let’s let’s try to do a pride celebration," which initially, you know, was was meant to be a local celebration.

GILGER: Sure. But it’s gotten a lot bigger than that, it sounds like.

GARCIA: It’s gotten a lot bigger. I will tell you, last year our approximation was about 5,000 people. And and our estimates this year were closer to seven. And I really think that the changes and the losses of celebrations in neighboring communities have really added to to our visitors. We sell out. It’s one of the largest celebrations in Bisbee throughout the year, you know, and it’s a multi-day celebration.

GILGER: Yeah. Last 30 seconds for you, Ramon. Any favorite moments from this year’s celebrations, favorite events?

GARCIA: I think the parade. The parade is always a highlight. We have great response. We had the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, Congresswoman Grijalva were here. But it was also a larger parade than we’ve seen in a long time.

GILGER: Yeah. All right. Well, thank you very much for coming on the show. Bisbee Pride President and CEO Ramon Garcia joining us. Ramon, thanks very much. Appreciate it.

GARCIA: Thank you.

GILGER: Good morning. It’s The Show on KJZZ 91.5. I’m Lauren Gilger. Coming up, a Tucson high school government teacher goes to national political conventions to record interviews with delegates and activists for students.

BRIAN MOCK: One of the narrative arcs of this project is going to be a teacher goes to the convention to get nuanced, real-life, real people views to bring back to the classroom to analyze. So, I mean, you just find all kinds of nuanced and interesting perspectives.

GILGER: We’ll hear more about the documentary he’s making about his experiences.

LAUREN GILGER: And now let’s turn to the next segment in our ongoing series here on The Show about religion at the State Legislature. We’re calling it Ditat Deus, Arizona’s state motto, meaning “God enriches.”

Here, we’re exploring the role religion plays in the lives of the folks who shape policy here in our state. And we’re finding religion is often a defining factor in their politics, their decision making and often why they’re there to begin with.

Today, let’s meet a lawmaker who found herself at the center of a major controversy at 1700 West Washington just a few years ago, dubbed “Biblegate.”

[MONTAGE OF NEWS CLIPS PLAYS]

CHRIS CUOMO: Now to Arizona and the case of the missing Bibles.

KYMA NEWS: New tonight, a Democratic state lawmaker is apologizing for hiding two Bibles kept in a lounge at the state Capitol.

INSIDE EDITION: The Good Book was showing up in the strangest places, under seat cushions, in a fridge.

REPORTER: Stephanie, you’re an ordained minister. Why would you hide the Bibles, Stephanie?

[END OF MONTAGE]

GILGER: Democratic Rep. Stephanie Stahl Hamilton was found to be the culprit behind the scandal. She had been taking the two Bibles that were normally placed on the tables in the House of Representatives’ member lounge and hiding them in odd places. She was caught on hidden camera placed there by Republican leadership who were trying to get to the bottom of the mystery of the moving Bibles.

STEPHANIE STAHL HAMILTON: Members, I stand here today wanting to acknowledge the offense I committed by my actions.

GILGER: It was an odd position for the Tucson Democrat to find herself in, namely because Stahl Hamilton is a believer in the Bible and its sanctity.

STAHL HAMILTON: I hold scripture very dear to my heart. It is what guides me. It is what shapes and informs the decisions I make.

GILGER: In fact, she is an ordained Presbyterian minister. She was trained at Princeton’s Theological Seminary, the Presbyterian Church’s flagship program, and she told me it was a major departure from the conservative evangelical church she was raised in.

STAHL HAMILTON: I was supposed to be quiet and submissive, and I was created to be anything but.

GILGER: Until she was 11 years old, Stahl Hamilton lived on Navajo tribal lands, where she said she was exposed to a rich culture that was religious in very different ways.

STAHL HAMILTON: Again, there was some dissonance if we were told that the only way for salvation was through Jesus and God.

GILGER: Then, as a college student, she started thinking more critically about her faith — and eventually she left that church altogether.

STAHL HAMILTON: Yeah, and it was incredibly difficult. I lost a lot of friends.

LAUREN GILGER: I bet.

STAHL HAMILTON: In that moment, and a lot of people thought I was backsliding. Like slippery slope, all of that. And for me, it really truly felt like freedom.

GILGER: It wasn’t until she had kids, though, that she dove into public service.

STAHL HAMILTON: I’m married to a public school teacher, and I had three children who never had the benefit of a fully funded education system.

GILGER: She joined her local school district’s Site Council around 2007 and 2008 and saw just how hard-hit they were by the Great Recession when budgets were swept.

STAHL HAMILTON: I saw the fabric of our community starting to be pulled apart. That was the first thing. And then my husband was not making a living wage to support a family of five.

GILGER: Her family couldn’t make ends meet. They went into debt. They didn’t have health insurance for the kids. Her kids were on free and reduced lunches. Then in 2015, she went to the Legislature for the first time for a public education advocacy day.

STAHL HAMILTON: And as I started noticing, I noticed the Bibles on the desks. And my first thought was, “Wow, somebody’s awfully pious.” But then I started noticing, coupled with the Bibles were elephants. And I thought, “Are we reading the same Bible?”

GILGER: Sounds like that’s a theme from your life, though. That’s the same thought you had as a as a young person when you started learning about your own faith in the evangelical kind of sect that you grew up in.

STAHL HAMILTON: Are we reading the same Bible that says, “A little child shall lead them?” And then I was like, “But wait a minute, where is the separation of church and state?”

GILGER: The same question she would be faced with years later, when she was a lawmaker in these halls.

GILGER: OK. So, I have to ask you about so-called “Biblegate,” right, a few years ago. This kind of moment when you were really in the hot seat, and it created so much outrage. Like you were formally censured by your Republican colleagues, they tried to expel you from the legislature unsuccessfully. You apologized at the time, and I wonder, like a few years later, how do you view this in the rearview mirror?

STAHL HAMILTON: Well, certainly I’ll go back to the moment, it was really raw because how it was handled was really awful, how I was treated was really awful. And it led to lots of destruction, people at my church being bullied, my husband, my children bullied online. And even for 2 1/2 years, lots of hate email, just lots of — I got anonymous letters.

So in that moment, the way people responded, it was red meat for a really rabid base. And people who wanted to protect the Bible said all kinds of ugly things to me that I thought, “Oh, wow. This is not about protecting Bibles because you would never do these types of things to a human being if you really were a Christian.”

But even in the moment, I was frustrated. I had just come off the floor after hearing a lot of really poor theology in regards to abortion. And I was frustrated, and I stepped off the floor trying to catch my breath, and it’s when I noticed the Bibles. And I thought, “Oh my God, here we go again. Where is the separation of church and state? I’ll fix this.”

GILGER: So this was, it was a statement you were trying to make.

STAHL HAMILTON: It was a protest. It was a moment of protest. At times, scripture felt like it was being used as a bludgeon. And I was quickly dismissed as a “so-called pastor.” And if you know anything about the Presbyterian process of being ordained, you don’t get to just go to Bible school and call yourself a minister, or feel some funny feeling in your tummy and decide you’re a minister.

No. Ordination exams, three years of education, learning languages, all of the things. It was very rigorous process. And my call was affirmed by the community, and my church stood behind me and by me with all of it.

In the rearview mirror, it has not changed my relationships with my colleagues across the aisle. They still are very baffled by me, but they also said it was used as a political maneuver, and it got wrapped up in the politics. And I handed it to them on a silver platter, truly.

There were a lot of people that wanted me to to really die on that hill and make that my platform, especially because at the time, we’re seeing such a rise in white Christian nationalism. And they wanted me to be the face to that.

And that’s not why I came down here. I still believe very strongly there needs to be a separation of church and state, but I do not shirk — because I can’t — my theological lens when I step through this building. It absolutely drives me.

But I’m here to be a representative of my people, and there may be some things that I some things I probably would not have dreamed I would take votes on. But I try not to let my personal thoughts and views cloud how I show up and who I’m representing.

GILGER: I want to dig into that more in a moment. But let me ask you first: Do you regret it?

STAHL HAMILTON: No. I mean, you know, it it certainly, that will always be out there forever. But on the other hand, I apologized immediately, but there were so many people who looked to that to say, “She’s — yeah, right on.” It shone a light on something that a lot of people didn’t know was happening at the state Capitol.

GILGER: So, it’s interesting because you come from this explicitly religious point of view as a minister, as a Protestant, as a Christian. But I think when we talk about religion in politics, we assume we’re talking about conservatives. How do you reconcile that? Like what do you think your Republican Christian colleagues are thinking differently that lead them to different conclusions?

STAHL HAMILTON: I’m not going to assume to think for them. I can tell you they are baffled by me, and they’ve told me as much. But I also want to put out on the table, I have memories of Rev. Jesse Jackson from when I was a teenager back in the ’80s. And then the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, who was assassinated before I was born, right? We have these examples where it is OK for the Black church to marry faith and politics and actually be stand up leaders, and we embrace that and celebrate that and put them squarely in the camp of Democratic politics.

It has been a little bit different for me until I remind people that, no, there have been examples long before I ever arrived on the scene that have given me all kinds of permissions.

GILGER: Well, so like the Presbyterian Church sees something like abortion, for example, as morally acceptable. Reading the same Bible that, you know, someone on the right is who will live and die on that issue. What do you think the difference is?

STAHL HAMILTON: I don’t know. I think this idea of believing — and this is a belief structure — that life begins at conception has somehow taken root, end of discussion. And that’s not, life doesn’t necessarily begin at conception. You know, the Jewish faith and tradition does not believe life begins until the first breath. For me, I agree with Dr. King and that the arc of history bends towards justice. And for me, you do not have justice without mercy. It’s born out of mercy.

GILGER: OK. We’ll leave it there. State Rep. Stephanie Stahl Hamilton joining us. Thank you so much.

STAHL HAMILTON: Thank you.

GILGER: Good morning. It is The Show on KJZZ 91.5 in Phoenix. I’m Lauren Gilger.

Have you ever noticed that the weather forecast on TV news or from our own Bruce Drummond or Phil Latzman here on the radio might say we’re looking at a record heat today, it’s going to be 112, for instance today. But if you open up the weather app on your phone, it’ll say something entirely different.

Mine today says 108. But Bruce over there in our master control is reporting a high of 112° and that’s a pretty big difference. And don’t even get me started on the alarming numbers that pop up when you get into your car.

So, why does this happen? And more importantly, who is right? For more on that, I’m joined by our favorite extreme weather expert here on the show, ASU professor of geographical sciences, Randy Cerveny. Hi there, Randy. Thanks for coming in.

RANDY CERVENY: Hey, my pleasure.

GILGER: Okay, so clear this up for us. There is kind of a consistent difference, it seems, between this reported forecast that you’re going to hear on the news and the records even that we see, or what you’re going to get when you open up your phone. What’s the difference here?

CERVENY: Well, the phones are not using the National Weather Service forecast. The phones are using their own AI-based computer model forecast. And there is basically not a lot of information on exactly what goes into their particular models and how good they are.

GILGER: Huh. So, they have their own models, you don’t even know exactly where they’re coming from.

CERVENY: Right, exactly. And they don’t really want to give us that information either. So, basically, the place where you really want to try to get your your good forecast is going to be the National Weather Service.

GILGER: Okay. And that’s what, of course, we’re reporting.

CERVENY: Exactly.

GILGER: But like, so Phil Latzman, for example, on on Morning Edition here at KJZZ, will tell you he hears a lot from folks that, you know, they’re annoyed that he’s reporting a temperature that’s so much higher than what they’re seeing on their phone. And there’s another layer to this, too, because people will say like, "You know, it’s not 115 here in Cave Creek or in North Scottsdale where I am." You know, does this also have to do with where folks are in the valley and where those National Weather Service official temperatures are coming from?

CERVENY: Absolutely. And that’s the thing is that the Valley is so big and has such a complex terrain that we have lots of what we call microclimates. That the actual temperature at one place here in Tempe, for example, versus another place that is Arcadia, are going to have two entirely different temperatures compared to, say, Cave Creek. So, what generally happens is that the hot spot of the entire Phoenix metropolitan area is Sky Harbor Airport.

GILGER: Where we take the temperatures.

CERVENY: Right. And there’s a couple of reasons for that. It is at the lowest elevation for this area and low elevations are going to be the hottest, and it’s also just a lot of concrete, a lot of asphalt, and a lot of desert terrain.

GILGER: Yeah, it’s an airport. So, I mean, is it accurate that we take our official forecasts at Sky Harbor?

CERVENY: Well, there are actually probably better places to put it, because our airport is using every little space now that it can use. It used to be that we would have some natural terrain. You always want to put a weather station where there is natural terrain so it’s reflective of the the area, not of a specific site. And unfortunately, at Sky Harbor, yeah, there is less and less natural terrain.

GILGER: Okay. So, is that a discussion in the weather world, Randy, that maybe we should put this somewhere else?

CERVENY: Yes, it is, actually.

GILGER: I can tell. Okay. Okay. A good discussion? What do you think, this is a good idea to talk about?

CERVENY: Well, the the problem is going to be the Federal Aviation Commission. They they they don’t want to move a they have a reason for having the weather station at Sky Harbor. They need it for their for their planes. For people that are in the Phoenix metropolitan area, yeah, Sky Harbor probably is not the best representative site for giving us the weather.

GILGER: Okay. So, National Weather Service is going to be your most accurate, but it’s coming from Sky Harbor. So, let’s talk about one other big question here that we get from folks, which is about that car thermometer, right? Like, those are, I mean, downright scary numbers you get in your car sometimes if it’s been sitting out in the sun. It’s going to say it’s 130.

CERVENY: Yeah. And I’ve I’ve actually had people call me up and say, "Well, I’ve set the new highest record for the Phoenix metropolitan area because my car temperature said such and such." Well, no, the problem is that we have very strict standards as to how temperature and other weather variables need to be measured. All weather measurements have to be done in the shade. Your car sitting there in the sunlight with the thermometer generally associated with somewhere on the dashboard is not going to be representative of the surrounding area.

GILGER: So, take that with a grain of salt, okay? That makes me feel better. Okay. Let me take the last couple of minutes here, Randy, to talk to you about monsoon season, which officially kicked off pretty recently here, but we have not seen a lot of rain. It’s been threatening to rain a little bit here and there, but not much has come down. But we are hearing that we are about to get this summer, this Super El Niño coming out of the Pacific Ocean. What’s this about?

CERVENY: Well, we generally have in around the start of the monsoon on the 15th, a surge of moisture that comes up from the Gulf of California. That starts to lay the foundations for the monsoon. Then we get usually a little drying out. That’s what we had going on this week, and that’s why we’re going to get up to 112 today at Sky Harbor. But then what’s going to happen starting next week is that we’ll get the return of the moisture, and we’re looking at a fair amount of moisture coming into the state. Likelihood is that thunderstorms won’t only just be located up on the Rim, but they will come down into the Valley as well.

GILGER: Okay, so this is promising in terms of actually getting some rain this monsoon season, which has not happened every monsoon season of late. But is it going to be too much? Are we looking at flooding? Are we looking at, you know, pretty scary conditions?

CERVENY: Oh, we’ll always get some flooding because, unfortunately, a lot of our man-made infrastructure promotes that. When you build roads and such, the water doesn’t have a chance to soak into the soil anymore and it runs off. So, yeah, whenever we have monsoon thunderstorms, we will likely have some flooding. It depends on how extensive are the thunderstorms as to, you know, whether they’re going to cause massive problems or not.

GILGER: Yeah, yeah. Okay, so could be some flooding, could be a good amount of rain. I mean, I wonder when it when we’re talking about heat and just how hot the summers can get here, are we looking at some pretty high humidity numbers as well, which we are not used to in the Valley?

CERVENY: Yeah, we’ll we’ll definitely be moistening up the atmosphere. You noticed that this morning, actually, the dew point jumped up from the 40s up into the 50s. Now, the biggest thing, though, that I’m that we normally want to play very close attention, especially this next week, is going to be wildfires because when these first dust storm or when these first thunderstorms create, come into the Valley, they’re going to create dust storms. And the dust storms are going to have a lot of wind with them, and they’re going to have lightning. And those are the two ingredients that you really need for wildfires, I’m afraid.

GILGER: So we could kick off some early wildfire season activity here. We’re already seeing some fires around the state right now. Are we hoping that the rains will come shortly thereafter and help things out?

CERVENY: That’s usually what will occur. We’ll have about the first week or so in July associated with these big mammoth dust walls that come in, these haboobs that come into the Valley. And then we’ll start getting more and more moisture associated with them, and we’ll have less dust storms, more thunderstorms.

GILGER: Okay, well, we’ll see how things shape up this year. ASU professor of geographical sciences, Randy Cerveny, an extreme weather expert coming on of course to fill us in all of our on all of our latest questions. Randy, thank you so much for coming on, appreciate it.

CERVENY: My pleasure.

GILGER: Good morning. It is The Show on KJZZ 91.5 in Phoenix. I’m Lauren Gilger. What happens when a high school government teacher goes to political conventions to talk to delegates and activists? Our next guest has done just that. Brian Mock teaches high school government in Tucson and has been going to the Democratic and Republican national conventions for more than 30 years. He’s also the director and co-producer of an upcoming documentary about his experiences called Unconventional. Mock spoke with my co-host, Mark Brodie, about this, and they started with how when he goes to these conventions, he approaches it as a teacher as opposed to if he were a journalist or someone else trying to document the events.

MOCK: Well, that’s that’s interesting because in 2024, I actually went as a journalist and teacher. I had a press pass from the Tucson Sentinel. Prior to that, it was just as a teacher. So, you know, I would approach people and just say, "Look, I’m a I’m a teacher from Tucson, Arizona. I teach government and politics. Would love to, you know, have a few minutes of your time. Tell my students on camera why you’re supporting or not supporting the the nominee for your party."

MARK BRODIE: And were people generally willing to talk to you?

MOCK: Absolutely. Now, the parties differ sometimes in how much they’re willing to talk. There’s definitely a cultural difference. But, yeah, overall, yeah.

BRODIE: And what were you trying to find out from these attendees?

MOCK: Um, I wanted to find out their their social and economic and foreign policy beliefs so because that’s what I teach in my class and I use the the same sort of jargon and verbiage that I use in my classroom so that when they’re speaking, they’re answering in a in the same language the of my classroom. And I wanted to find out, you know, are they more centrist, are they more radical, and and do they agree or disagree with the party’s platform, why or why not?

BRODIE: And you focus mostly on what was going on outside the arena, right? Like you weren’t necessarily recording the speeches going on from the from the stage.

MOCK: Yeah, in the early, you know, in ’96, 2004, 2008, I was mostly outside. I got in, I went with a couple friends and one had a press pass. And so, a lot of times at the, you know, I think in 2004 and ’08, I got to go in the last night and see the the acceptance speech or something. Um, but, yeah, so I was mostly capturing the the insanity often that goes on outside the conventions.

BRODIE: And that’s something that I think a lot of people don’t necessarily see. Like even if you watch the convention, you’re seeing what’s going on inside, maybe you see some images or you hear, you know, some voices from people outside, but you’re focusing on that. Like, what what are we missing by not seeing that?

MOCK: Uh, you’re missing, you’re missing protests, counter-protests, speeches, um, events, um, you’re missing just the milieu of people around and press and you get to see how the press works, too. You know, for example, you can run into, say, the leader of the, I think, Muslim Americans for Trump, I think was what the group was called, um, in 2016 and say, "Hey, can I get an interview with you?" Or in 1996, it wasn’t near the convention, but I I found that I could sneak in with some friends to the Christian Coalition right-wing rally with cut-off shorts and t-shirt long hair, you know, looking like a college student that I was. And if I had a camera and microphone, people were like, "Okay, well, sure, I’ll talk." I’ve talked to Jerry Falwell. You know, I walked right up to Jerry Falwell and got an interview.

BRODIE: Wow.

MOCK: And realized, "Oh, this is not, this is cool."

BRODIE: So, what have you seen over those 30 years of, you’ve not been to every single convention over those over those 30 years, but, broadly speaking, like what’s what’s changed? What’s different?

MOCK: Um, the the militarized kind of structure outside the DNC I’ve noticed over the years um, has become incredibly has become a lot more prominent. Um, they separate delegates um, for their party going in um, from protesters and there’s thousands of people outside protesting. And we’re talking people on the left, uh, not really people on the right. Um, left of the party. I’ve seen that become uh more extreme, and I’ve also seen the Republican conventions become much more open. A little there’s definitely security, but much more open um, in terms of delegates, you know, milling about with just the public.

BRODIE: What has been different about what you have heard from folks about maybe why they’re there or where they stand on the political spectrum?

MOCK: Well, from delegates, delegates seem to, you know, they’re they’re giving party talking points, right? So, they’re there to support the nominee, the candidate, whatever, and they will list off the basic talking points of the party. Now, if you challenge them a little bit, sometimes they get a little confused. For example, you know, in 2008, I asked an Obama delegate, "Well, you know, does it bother you that he is, you know, for the death penalty?" Now, I I asked that because I knew my students and I were were talking about inconsistencies right between parties and and candidates and the platforms. And this has happened many times, and they the delegate said, um, "Oh, really? I I didn’t know that." I said, "Yeah."

Activists are much more, in my experience, informed and passionate. They don’t have to toe a party line, um, and they can be more critical um, and they can still say, "I’m going to still vote for the party for the candidate," but they’re a lot more a lot more informed.

BRODIE: Huh. How has the kind of uh footage and the kinds of insights that you’ve brought back from these conventions informed some of the conversations and discussions you have in your class?

MOCK: Well, that that when we learn about that kind of nuanced um and and abstract thinking about ideology, and I show then, you know, I I do what teachers call scaffolding, I work up to then, okay, like we’ve got that down. Now, let me show you some videos I took. And my students can’t believe, I mean, they’re oftentimes they’re just their jaws are agape, like, "Wow, like I didn’t realize a Democrat would say that or a Republican would say that." Um, they get to see how powerful uh ideology can be.

BRODIE: Is part of the hope with doing this that you can sort of introduce maybe a little more nuance into our political thinking?

MOCK: Yeah, I mean, you know, I’m I I feel like I’m one of the other kind of narrative ideas here is is going up against this as I said earlier, this kind of binary red-blue that we have that’s divided us. And saying, "Well, wait a minute, you know, what do people really believe in, you know, and what are some common like what’s some common ground here?" And do the two parties actually represent what people want?

BRODIE: How long do you think you want to keep going to these conventions?

MOCK: Oh, I want to I want to just as long I mean, I want to keep going. Ad infinitum, I really do. I mean, I plan to go to 2028. You know, I want this to come out in for festivals in a year um, and then wide release um, 2028 before, you know, during the primaries, you know, before the summer, before the election. Um, yeah, I wanted it to have an impact there and uh but, yeah, I do plan to keep going, absolutely.

BRODIE: All right. That is Brian Mock, a high school government teacher in Tucson. Brian, thanks so much. I appreciate it.

MOCK: Thanks for having me.

GILGER: The monsoon season officially started on June 15 — as heard from professor Randy Cerveny earlier in The Show, we haven’t seen much rain yet, but we are expecting a "super El Niño" this year. It’s been forming in the Pacific Ocean and scientists say it could bring a whole lot of rain to the Valley this summer.

And, if you want to predict just how much — the University of Arizona’s Institute for Resilience is holding its annual Southwest Monsoon Fantasy Forecast competition right now.

Zack Guido with the institute was on The Show last year to tell us more about it.

ZACH GUIDO: We're just really asking the public for their best estimates of what monsoon precipitation will be like on a monthly level at five cities around the Southwest. It sort of circumnavigates the monsoon region here in the U.S. So that would be Tucson, Phoenix, Flagstaff, Albuquerque and El Paso.

And they make their estimates prior to the start of the month for that month at each site, and they score points based on how accurate their forecasts are, in comparison to what actually fell in terms of rain, and also how risky their forecast is.

LAUREN GILGER: So each win advances your ranking, culminating in someone winning the ultimate bragging rights by the end of the season.

If you want to try your hand at being a forecaster, you can join in online — but the last day to submit your predictions for July is coming up soon, June 30. So head to our website for more information: theshow.kjzz.org

GILGER: Thanks for listening to The Show’s podcast. The Show is produced by Sativa Peterson, Nick Sanchez, Amber Victoria Singer, Athena Ankrah, and Ayana Hamilton. The Show was created by Jon Hoban and our executive producer is Amy Silverman. You can find more of The Show and sign up for our newsletter at theshow.kjzz.org. You can also find us on Instagram @kjzztheshow.