Jesse will do great among the unwashed, the rural, the illiterate, the scared goobers willing to cheerfully vote against their own interests, whipping up the groundlings and the believers with rhetorical red meat so rotten with the stench of untruths that honorable flies will choose to lay their eggs elsewhere. And he’ll smile like a man surprised he said something resembling a coherent thought. And the crowds who hate elitists and grammar and syntax and critical thinking will slap their knees and hoot. Scan the online comment section for repugnant speech and unfiltered anonymous hatred of all who differ with the strict conservative view and and you have found your archetypal “here come the black helicopters from Kenya” Kelly supporters.

And he will be petted and stroked and groomed and cooed to by right-wing think tanks and he’ll be showered, nay, flooded with bags of cash from big oil and all the right PACs looking for a manly mannequin with a pull string. And he’s a pretty one. He’s tall and he’s handsome and he’s tall and he’s handsome. Elderly church ladies who can’t tell you who the Vice-President is gaze adoringly up at Kelly, yearning to vote for him and to adopt him and to feed him apple pie. Goodbye Mo Udall, hello empty plastic Ken doll.

And he will be angry at those who question his ascendency and his indignant finger will raise up to poke the sky and he’ll thunder incoherent talk radio babble about freedom and liberty and liberty from freedom and FOX news and the right-wing machine will give him their cameras and their spotlights every chance they can.

He won’t represent you. He will represent the Tea Party fanatics, talk radio freaks, the hand-wringing evangelicals, the gun fondlers and the paranoid. The rest of you are just not Americans, you Marxists and Communists and baby killers and you can go to Hell for all he cares. He’ll terrify crowds with his tales of the liberal straw man, the wretched progressive sasquatch, the abominable secularists and he’ll shake the scarecrow and he’ll offer himself up as the great peasant’s torch just waiting to be pressed into battle against the fictitious kindling. Swaddled in the flag and clutching his sacred Constitution he’ll weep for America and prophesy a plague of socialism sweeping across the land that will rival the fire-in-the-sky visions of St. John. Evolution is a head-shaker and abortion is for harlots and those who are not with him are devils. The Word is Limbaugh and he is the word made flesh. Hearken to Jesse all ye Limbaugh Christians, the end times are upon us and the Messiah has a high school diploma. Reject him not, oh ye dittoheads. The Republicans have their man, their folksy Baron of bromides, their King of jingos, raised in the womb of the right-wing echo chamber. And their darling will have an army of fanatical feverish shock jocks who’ll trumpet at the Walls of Jericho for He who is Him everyday until Medicare, Social Security, Big Government, Taxes, the department of Education, our rotting public education system, and those diabolical regulators and the United Nations all come tumbling down.

At the final debate with Giffords in 2010 he was figuratively hoisted on the shoulders of believers with pitchforks and torches who cheered their Messiah with yahoos and slogans in lieu of palm fronds. How can one be civil when you’re debating an opponent who lies and smirks and makes George Bush sound look Stephen Hawking? His adherents cannot be moved by facts, they have found faith.

Sinclair Lewis had his Main Street Babbitt, we have Kelly. This Barber v. Kelly election will truly be an American spectacle rivaling the Scopes Monkey trial because its outcome will define us for years. Are we an easily frightened America aching for the shallow comfort of the primitive and the superstitious or are we the fearless America that questions, that embraces the future, that is modern and smart? Mark Twain and H.L.Mencken savaged their respective times as the gilded ages of carnival hawkers and tent evangelists and smiling shoeshine salesmen and gullible rubes willing to say yes to any smiling carpet-bagger. They are gazing up from Hell longing to see this show unfold. This summer the oldest American story shall repeat itself.

Read more: http://azstarnet.com/news/blogs/fitz-blog/fitz-kelly-wins/article_fe79178c-890e-11e1-baa5-001a4bcf887a.html#ixzz1soimfI63

Cityscape of Tucson downtown against mountain range, Arizona.

By Rob Lovitt, msnbc.com contributor

Is winter giving you a bad case of the blues? If so, perhaps you should go to your happy place, which might just be Tucson, Ariz.

In a new study, “The Old Pueblo” topped a list of the 10 happiest winter travel destinations in the U.S. It was joined, in descending order, by:
•St. Petersburg, Fla.
•Charleston, S.C.
•Napa-Sonoma, Calif.
•Seattle
•Los Angeles
•Palm Springs, Calif.
•Washington, D.C.
•Las Vegas
•Houston

The study was commissioned by Hilton HHonors, the company’s loyalty program. Hilton Worldwide, to the surprise of no one, has multiple properties in each destination.

“People are indoors a lot during the winter and Seasonal Affective Disorder [SAD] is prevalent,” said happiness expert Aymee Coget, CEO of the American Happiness Association, who teamed up with Hilton. Travel, she said, can be the antidote to “the moody blues.”

“Being outdoors helps people be happier,” she told msnbc.com. “Sunshine helps because of the Vitamin D.”

It’s hardly surprising then that the list is dominated by sunny southern destinations. Selected by Sperling’s Best Places, they were judged in several categories, including relaxation, nature, average winter temperatures and number of sunny days per year.

Those criteria were augmented by more urban amenities, including the number of restaurants and bars, cultural institutions and, for some reason, ice cream shops. We’re not sure of the science involved but do have to admit that a big bowl of Chunky Monkey certainly makes us happy.

The latter set of criteria may also explain how Seattle and Washington, D.C. — not exactly warm and sunny winter destinations the last time we checked — made the list.

“It’s not rocket science,” Coget told msnbc.com. “When you’re having new experiences, you’re happier.”

Good vibes aside, it turns out that there actually is scientific, albeit equally non-aeronautic, evidence that travel, particularly leisure travel, makes you happier. However, according to a 2010 study published in Applied Research in Quality of Life, the biggest boost isn’t generated by the travel per se but rather the anticipation of it.

Do you prefer short getaways or longer vacations?

“People get excited [when planning vacations],” said Coget. “They’re excited to see this or that person or sit by the pool. It’s a projection of happiness.”

For that reason, both Coget and the scientists in the 2010 study suggest that taking more short getaways may provide a bigger boost than a single, longer vacation will. Presumably, multiple long weekends entail serial planning efforts, which elevates happiness on a recurring basis.

Clearly, more research is warranted but in the meantime, here in the Overhead Bin, we believe quick getaways and week-long trips both have their benefits. After all, why settle for being merely happy when you can enjoy double happiness?

Rob Lovitt is a longtime travel writer who still believes the journey is as important as the destination. Follow him at Twitter.

Read more: http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/pima-bond-oversight-advances-in-house/article_a345fd97-585a-5fdd-a411-75c33d107151.html#ixzz1lJrZ1xlY

County supervisors of elections tell me they have no way to verify citizenship. Under the 1992 Motor Voter Law, they’re not required to ask for proof.

“We have no policing authority. We don’t have any way of bouncing that information off any other database that would give us that information,”

Anyone know a place like this?

Posted by Rob Ferrier on Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 4:00 PM

While the Pima County Democratic Party might not have a face, it certainly has a voice. I am writing of course of Jeff Rogers, the twice-elected Chair of the Pima County Democratic Party.

The duties of Chair are as follows:

The County Chair shall preside at all meetings; make appointments to committees; make temporary appointments to offices which have been vacated… and generally do all and everything necessary to aid in the election of Democratic candidates, and to promote successful organization and operation of the Pima County Democratic Committee.

In sum, the Chair is to administrate the Party, raise money and groom potential candidates. The Chair is also a member of the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee is allowed and authorized to express policy position on issues of local, state, and national import. Nowhere, however, in the bylaws, is the Chair authorized to decide who is, and who is not, Democrat enough for the Party’s taste. Nowhere in the bylaws do the words “Chair” and “duly appointed demagogue” appear within the same sentence.

Yet in 2011, the Pima County Democratic Party, seemingly at Mr. Rogers’ direction, but voted on by the Executive Committee, spent almost $9,000.00 to fund a campaign against Joe Flores in the Ward 1 City Council, primary election. In other words, Jeff Rogers, as the head of the Pima County Democratic Party, picked one Democrat over another during a party primary. While, as the Party was quick to point out, this action is not strictly prohibited, it is undeniably unusual.

Such an unusual move must have been firmly grounded in sound and mature disagreements over specific expressed by Mr. Flores. No. Instead, as Mr. Rogers said, “We have someone here (Mr. Flores) who we’ve never believed was a bona fide Democrat.” Mr. Rogers also cited the lack of support among his colleagues on the Party Committee as further evidence that Mr. Flores simply was not Democrat enough for him, and therefore the public at large. Perfectly appropriate for Tammany Hall.

Mr. Rogers, I ask you directly. You do not know me. May I still stand for public office? Must I renounce my Party membership to do so? Must I first approach you and seek your approval? Before I state my view on this or that, should I check with you first? As you read this, are you seated upon a dais, thoughtfully turning the proverbial ring upon your finger?

Mr. Rogers’ war upon the Party extends beyond the Ward 1 primary. His most vociferous criticism of Party members has been reserved for Miguel Cuevas and Mark Stegeman, both Democrats, both members of the TUSD school board. Stegeman’s and Cuevas’ transgressions? They had the unmitigated gall not to vote as Mr. Rogers wanted them to, at least when it came to TUSD’s embattled Mexican American Studies Program.

I also do not agree with Mr. Stegeman and Mr. Cuevas on that particular issue. I would not dream, however, of labeling the men as “Neville Chamberlains when it comes to the war on Tucson…” or state that either needs “to be tarred and feathered and rode out of town on a rail,” or aver that “they are unfit to live in a multicultural community like Tucson,” because they are “evil.” Comparing a man who voted against your wishes to history’s most benighted quisling, (outside of Quisling himself of course), would be faintly humorous, and acceptable hyperbole from the mouth of a fifteen year old. From a prominent Party leader, it is something else again.

At the very least it is juvenile. It is crass. And more than a bit disturbing. To be very, very blunt, it is not for Mr. Rogers to tell a publicly elected official how to vote, nor to label that man as evil when he votes in a way that displeases Mr. Rogers.

Like a lot of Democrats, and I am sure, most Republicans, I think, in general, it is way past time for Mr. Rogers to shut his mouth. I am weary of reading his half-baked theories on Jared Loughner’s political leanings, TUSD, or whatever else crosses the ever-shrinking space between his reason and his speech. But in his position, he has the right, and apparently the endorsement of the Party’s Executive Committee, to comment generally on policy. Well and good.

He does not have the right, however, to tell me, or anyone else, what we are allowed to think or believe as Democrats. And he does not have the right to tell his fellow Democrats that they are not welcome in my Party.

The Democratic Party does not belong to Mr. Rogers. While it is to his credit that he agreed to serve it, neither I, nor the vast majority of the rank and file asked him to define the contours of its policy, nor granted him the right to use it as his bully pulpit. And it is high past time that when he chooses to express his personal views that he identify himself as Jeff Rogers, local gadfly, and not Jeff Rogers, Chair of the Pima County Democratic Party. Because I, for one, am sick and tired of others assuming that Mr. Rogers speaks for me.

I was born and raised Republican. I chose to be a Democrat. Through the years, I participated in Young Democrats, I volunteered for candidates and once, and only once, allowed myself to be dragooned as a Precinct Committeeman. I admired, and still admire, FDR, Truman, JFK and RFK. I voted for Bill Clinton twice despite my personal distaste for his prurient habits. I have long accepted that the blessing of American privilege comes hand in glove with the responsibility of public service. And I embraced the Democratic Party because, fundamentally as a liberal leaning fellow, I believed in a few core ideals.

First, government is and should be, a force for good. Second, all people, regardless of where they came, what they believed, or what the color of their skin, deserved a fair shake from government. And most of all, I joined the Democratic Party because the Party shared those ideals. Within the Party, I am free to think what I want, and to believe what I want. And to know, to coin a phrase, that while my fellow Democrats might not like what I say, they will die for my right to say it. Above all else, we stand and fall together. We are the Great Coalition. The Big Tent. Come one. Come all.

I have friends within the Party that are pro-life. That are gun nuts. That are against gay marriage. That wish to build a wall across the Mexican Border. That dream of the day the death penalty is free from the shackles of due process. I share none of these views. But I would never question their right to belong to my party. And I would never, ever question their right to vote their conscience or to speak their mind. As far as I know, there is no litmus test to be a Democrat.

Except, apparently, in Pima County.

Rob Ferrier is a local attorney and gadfly.

45 comments by Emily Gersema – Jan. 6, 2012 11:21 PM
The Republic | azcentral.com

The Arizona Department of Education imposed severe financial penalties on Tucson Unified School District on Friday for violating a new state law by refusing to revamp or end its controversial Mexican-American studies curriculum.

In a move aimed at forcing one of the state’s largest school districts to comply with the law banning racially divisive ethnic-studies classes, Arizona schools chief John Huppenthal said he is cutting state funding by 10 percent and making it retroactive to August, leaving the district facing an immediate funding loss of $4.9million.

The Tucson district and the state have been at odds for years over the ethnic-studies courses. The district says that they address segregation complaints filed in the 1970s, but state officials contend that they promote reverse racism.

Last year, the state put into effect the ethnic-studies law, which bans classes that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, encourage resentment toward a race or class of people, are designed solely for students of a certain ethnic background and advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of students as individuals.

Last week, state Administrative Law Judge Lewis Kowal upheld Huppenthal’s declaration, made last summer, that the Tucson district had violated the statute.

Huppenthal said he had given the district plenty of time to improve the program and address the state’s concerns and had no other choice but to impose penalties.

“The district hasn’t dealt with the issue,” Huppenthal said. “The problems are so deep and so wide, it would be almost impossible to cure the program.”

Under his decision, the Tucson school district, which was to receive $340million in state funds for this school year, will lose 10 percent, or slightly more than $1million, from its state checks each month, unless it complies with his demands.

If it fails to comply, it could lose more than $14million by the end of the fiscal year on June 30.

The bulk of state money for schools is used for staff and operations.

The implications of the funding cuts were not immediately clear.

The Tucson school board will discuss the future of the ethnic-studies program at its scheduled meeting Tuesday, board President Mark Stegeman said. He didn’t have any immediate comment on Friday’s decision, and other board members didn’t respond to messages seeking comment.

Huppenthal said the penalty is retroactive because he initially had declared the program illegal in the summer, and the funding cuts would have begun in August if Tucson hadn’t filed a complaint with the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings asking an administrative-law judge to hear its challenge to his decision.

The program’s fate is unclear, though. A group of Mexican-American studies advocates and families suing Huppenthal in federal court asked a federal judge last month to stop the penalties from taking effect through a request for a preliminary injunction.

“We’re waiting for a decision,” said Richard Martinez, an attorney for the advocates.

“If there were ever circumstances that warranted a preliminary injunction, this is it.”

Martinez had filed the lawsuit in fall 2010 on behalf of families and supporters of the Mexican-American studies program. The case is pending.

Huppenthal said the state will not settle it outside court.

The ethnic-studies law that took effect one year ago was crafted by Huppenthal and his predecessor, Tom Horne, who is now the state attorney general. At the time, Huppenthal was in charge of the Senate Education Committee.

Horne began investigating the ethnic-studies programs in Tucson in 2006 while he was state superintendent of public instruction. He looked into it after students in Tucson booed and jeered one of his assistant superintendents speaking at the district and after residents and a former Tucson teacher, John Ward, complained that the program was creating racial tension.

Two years later, Horne began asking legislators to craft a law that would force the school district to revise the classroom lessons and teachers’ approach or end the program.

Before leaving for the Attorney General’s Office last January, the same month the law took effect, Horne said the Tucson schools’ program was illegal.

He left the task of enforcing it to Huppenthal, who succeeded him as state schools chief that month.

Huppenthal then commissioned a study of the program. In the summer, analysts involved with the study published a report saying the Mexican-American studies program was legal. Huppenthal disagreed.

After collecting various texts and materials that were associated with the Mexican-American studies program, Huppenthal said some of the texts, such as “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” written by Brazilian writer Paulo Freire and first published in 1968, were inflammatory and promoted racial hatred.

Education experts consider Freire’s book as the founding text of “critical race theory,” an approach commonly used today in higher education to analyze literature and history through the lens of people who have been oppressed.

“To create a sense of victimhood and inflame racial passions like that … I think it was completely appropriate for these issues to come to the surface and for us to deal with these issues,” Huppenthal said.

“Otherwise, these issues may never have seen the light of day. I think this public discussion is healthy.”

The Tuscon district’s ethnic-studies program has been a lightning rod for controversy for years. It was in large part borne of the district’s effort to fulfill court settlements of two segregation cases that were filed against it in the 1970s.

A judge then required the district to begin several years of improvements to end segregation and mistreatment of minority students.

The district, where more than 60 percent of the students are Latino, was released in 2010 from court monitoring in that case after a judge approved its final plan to end segregation. Ethnic-studies courses were included in that plan.

Teachers and Tucson-area professors who founded the Mexican-American studies program say that students in those courses perform better in schools.

However, Huppenthal and his staff believe there is no valid data available to substantiate that particular claim.

In fact, Huppenthal notes that the Tucson district, which has more than 50,600 students, has been a poorly performing district for many years, with students in several grades scoring below proficient levels in math, science, reading and writing.

When asked if his department will take control of the district to improve teacher and student performance to fulfill state and federal education standards, Huppenthal responded, “We’re a local-control state. We have high hopes for folks like (Tucson Superintendent) John Pedicone.

“I consider this (ethnic studies) a distraction.”

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2012/01/06/20120106arizona-ethnic-studies-case-funds-cut.html#ixzz1imaMxaKr

The Daily Beast