After Republican congressional candidate Martha McSally announced today that she supported changing federal gun laws to include those who are convicted of misdemeanor stalking on the list of prohibited possessors, Gabby Giffords' political action committee, Americans for Responsible Solutions, said it would be ending the run of a controversial TV ad one day early.

Pia Carusone, a senior adviser to Americans for Responsible Solutions, said she was pleased that McSally was moving away from her blanket opposition to expanding background checks.

"We're happy to see Martha McSally has changed her position on making it illegal for convicted stalkers to legally acquire firearms," Carusone said. "We hope her evolution on this issue continues."

But McSally spokesman Patrick Ptak said that McSally has always supported closing the so-called "stalker gap," although she had never addressed the issue before.

"Ron Barber's political allies never asked Martha's stance on the 'stalking gap' before running their disgraceful and false ad, and Martha's position has never changed on the issue," Ptak said.

The ad was the latest flashpoint in the tight race between McSally and Congressman Ron Barber (D-CD2).

SANAR is a pop-up restaurant* that throws beautiful dinners around town. The SANAR team consists of Dave Valencia of Agustin, Brian Smith of Acacia and Bri Grateron of La Paloma. The crew is throwing their final pop-up dinner of 2014 on October 6, this time held at Reilly Pizza and Drink. We are talking ten courses for $100 a person with an option of drink pairings (an additional $30). Dinner starts at 5 p.m. To make reservations, call 302-8400 or head to www.sanarfood.com.

From what I hear these dinners are every bit of a culinary event! Why not try something new?

Here's the 10 COURSE (!!!) menu:

*Definition from Wikipedia - Pop-up restaurants, (also called supper clubs), are temporary restaurants.

Zombies and ghouls will be ready to scare visitors at Old Tucson from Friday, Sept. 26 through Friday, Oct. 31. Show titles include The Reaping (an extraterrestrial storage and research facility), Monster's Kitchen (a reality-show style cooking competition) and Magic of the Macabre (with John Shryock and Mari Lynn).  There's also an iron door mine, creepy crawly cave, a zombie shoot, haunted hay ride, costume contest and more. 

Nightfall is open Thursday-Sunday from 6-10 p.m.; Friday and Saturday 6 p.m.-midnight, through midnight on Halloween. Tickets are $26 (ages 12 and older), $21 (ages 9 to 11), free (kids 8 and younger). From Friday, Sept. 26 through Sunday, Sept. 28, pay $16.50 for anyone 9 and older. More info at nightfallaz.com. 

Phoenix videographer Dennis Gilman has outdone himself again, this time with a particularly informative and moving piece on the Sanctuary Movement and Luis Lopez-Acabal, a Guatamalan man who recently took refuge in the University Presbyterian Church.

The video covers Tucson's history in the movement, and features John Fife, retired pastor of Tucson's Southside Presbyterian Church.

It's Southside that's led the latest charge—now giving refuge to a second undocumented person—Rosa Imelda Robles Loreto who is with her husband and two sons, ages 11 and 8.

Participating state parks and weekend dates for fall 2014:

Lost Dutchman SP, Apache Junction (Session A): September 27 & 28
Lyman Lake SP, St. Johns: September 27 & 28
Catalina SP, Tucson: October 4 & 5
Kartchner Caverns SP, Benson (Session A): October 4 & 5
Fort Verde SHP, Camp Verde: October 11 & 12
Lost Dutchman SP, Apache Junction (Session B): October 11 & 12
Patagonia Lake SP, Patagonia: October 18 & 19
Kartchner Caverns SP, Benson (Session B): October 25 & 26
Dead Horse Ranch SP, Cottonwood: October 25 & 26
Cattail Cove SP, Lake Havasu City: Nov. 8 & 9

Families should bring sleeping bags or any bedding, pillows, camping chairs, flashlights, clothing, sturdy shoes and personal items including toothpaste, towels, soap, etc. The program will provide tents, sleeping mats, lanterns, GPS units, and all activity equipment. Beverages provided include water, coffee, tea, and Gatorade. Meals provided include one dinner, one breakfast, one lunch, and all snacks. Families are responsible for bringing a cold lunch for Saturday's arrival meal.

Registration is now open for fall sessions at AZStateParks.com/Family. Program fee is $85 for up to family of 4, plus additional family members are $5 each. Sorry, children 5 years and younger or pets cannot attend this program. Registration is limited and is first-come, first-served.

For information about all 27 Arizona State Parks, the Trails and Off-Highway Vehicle Programs and State Historic Preservation Office call (602) 542-4174 or visit AZStateParks.com. Campsite reservations can be made online at AZStateParks.com or by calling the Reservation Call Center at (520) 586-2283. Open 7 days a week, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. MST. 

Cuddlr: because sometimes you just want a cuddle. from Charlie Williams on Vimeo.

I guess when you are in need of human interaction, it takes more than the produce section of Fry's to make the world feel like a better place. And for those without dogs or unnaturally affectionate cats ... well, maybe this makes sense, this Cuddlr phone app that matches folks who aren't looking for a hook-up or the love of their life.

It's just for a quick cuddle and run.

This is going to start an entire new conversation on the manners involved with cuddling—make sure the sweater you're wearing that day isn't synthetic, wear some deodorant and make sure there's a nice thank you before you depart.

Who knows? This is how we solve climate change and world peace? Cuddle, people. Cuddle.

H/T The Independent:

According to the Daily Mirror newspaper, Cuddlr's creator, Charlie Williams, said: “On Cuddlr, you get together straight away, have a little cuddle, and then part ways.

“If you want to hang out again, you can exchange information then and there - but you already know what kind of cuddles they give.

“It is possible to report someone who cuddles inappropriately, and we encourage first-time pairs to do their cuddling in a public place.

“Users can give information about their cuddling preferences such as if they favour being the little or big spoon.”

A rating system is used to assess cuddles as “awesome”, “good”, “ok” or “inappropriate”.

The free app stresses: “Unlike some other apps, Cuddlr is strictly about PG-rated experiences. Keep the cuddle a cuddle!

“At times you may want to ask someone about having a coffee or learning to knit. Wait until the end of the cuddle, then ask politely.”

Politico reporter Alex Isenstadt went hard after Gabby Giffords this morning, running a story about the drama behind the "Stalker Gap" ad her PAC, Americans for Responsible Solutions, is currently running in the CD2 race.

Gabby Giffords, irreproachable figure of sympathy, has fashioned an improbable new role for herself this election year: ruthless attack dog.

The former Democratic congresswoman, whose recovery from a gunshot wound to the head captivated the country, has unleashed some of the nastiest ads of the campaign season, going after GOP candidates in Arizona and New Hampshire with attacks even some left-leaning commentators say go too far. And Republicans on the receiving end are largely helpless to hit back, knowing a fight with the much-admired survivor is not one they’re likely to win.

Some of the toughest spots from Giffords’ newly formed pro-gun-control super PAC, Americans for Responsible Solutions, hammer Republican Martha McSally, a retired Air Force pilot who is running for the Arizona seat Giffords once held.

Apparently, the reason Giffords is going after McSally has something to do with some sort of jealousy or protection of her image?

It’s no accident that Giffords is singling out McSally, people close to the former congresswoman say.
During her unsuccessful 2012 campaign, McSally ran TV commercials comparing herself to Giffords. The Giffords team fumed, and her husband, retired astronaut Mark Kelly, released a terse statement declaring, “Martha McSally is no Gabby Giffords.”

To be fair, Isenstadt isn't the only one clutching his pearls over this ad, since the Arizona Republic ran an editorial calling the ad "vile", "a nasty piece of work" and "demagoguery in heart-rending tones."

Here's the thing that this faux-outrage seems to ignore. Giffords, who had a worst-case scenario experience with guns, believes people shouldn't have as much access as they do to guns, especially the sort of person who killed Kara and Daniel Walker.

Keep in mind that Daniel Renwick, Kara Walker's ex-boyfriend and the man who murdered her and her father, had been arrested on suspicion of assault and child endangerment. That he told Walker "If you call the police, they’ll find your body in the desert and I will kill all your family.”

Apparently, the great crime of this campaign ad is to remind people that Martha McSally, despite her own personal experience with stalking (which is terrible and nothing she deserves to have dealt with) believes existing laws are enough.

And let's be absolutely clear: Martha McSally said in a 2012 debate that "any restrictions on that, at gun shows or other places, is just absolutely unconstitutional." On this year's campaign trail, she bragged about an endorsement and support from the NRA, saying that she's a "ten" on a scale of one to ten on supporting the Second Amendment.

[Interestingly, in the video linked above, McSally points out that the NRA is sitting out strong public campaigning on her behalf in CD2 because of "the sensitivities of the circumstances." Oh right, those.]

If it's "vile" or "nasty" to point this out using a real-world example of the consequences of her opinions, sorry, I guess? Gabrielle Giffords isn't above criticism, especially when she's choosing to wade into heated political arguments, but the idea that the ad is "mean" or as McSally claims "degrading to all women and victims who have experienced this pain," is absurd.

You know what I happen to find "vile"? That a mother and grandfather were murdered in front of a 14-month-old child by someone who openly said they would do it. And all the hurt feelings in the world aren't ever going to be a tragedy worse than that.

We, as a nation, have made concessions with our safety to preserve the rights of gun owners. And Martha McSally, like anyone else, has the right to believe that's the right decision to be made.

However, when people die at the hands of gun-owners (especially gun-owners who have had trouble with the law or who purchased their guns where background checks weren't needed), those who support those loopholes, like McSally, don't get to shrug their shoulders and avoid criticism. It doesn't work that way—or at least it shouldn't.

I think I've mentioned in a dozen times now, but I'm super excited for the David Bowie is documentary showing tomorrow night at the Loft. I've actually had a screener for the film for a few weeks, but I haven't wanted to watch it on my sad not-terribly-large work monitor, because I feel like I'd be missing something out of the experience.

Here's what I wrote in Cinema Showdown this week:

There are approximately one hundred films showing over the course of this forthcoming week at the Loft (two nights of "The Wrath of Khan," a week of "The Zero Theorem" and "To Be Takei," two more Tarantino flicks, etc.), but the highlight of this week in Tucson film for me is the David Bowie documentary "David Bowie is" showing on Tuesday, Sept. 23 at 7 p.m. A documentary accompanying an art exhibition created by the Victoria and Albert Museum, London and currently travelling the world, the film looks at Bowie's magnificent career, explored through bits of the exhibition, including photographs, music videos, costumes and interviews with his collaborators and admirers. I guess your interest in this film would likely depend on your interest in Bowie himself, but if you care at all about rock 'n' roll, I'm not sure why you wouldn't be fascinated. Tickets are a little more than the regular Loft film, $12 for general admission, two bucks off for members, but as often happens with music-related film, Zia will be there giving stuff away.

For more info or to buy tickets in advance, head over to the Loft's website.

My posts get lots of comments, and I read them all, sometimes more than once (OK, I admit, if a commenter writes a short book, I may stop in the middle). I enjoy the heated discussion that goes on in the comments section, and I expect and appreciate comments from people who disagree with me. That's part of the process.

But comments that try to hijack the discussion, frankly, piss me off, and I will begin deleting them, not because I disagree with them but because they're off topic, and their comments either sidetrack or end the discussion.

If I write about candidates in the race for Superintendent of Public Instruction, commenters should write about that race and those candidates, not the TUSD school board race. When I write about the governor's race, a commenter should talk about the governor's race, not his opinion of Obama, in two consecutive posts.

People who don't like the topic of any given post can ignore it. People who desperately want to write about the TUSD race or Obama can start their own blogs and see if they can find an audience, or save their comments until I write about TUSD or Obama. If you go way off topic in a comment on one of my posts, there's a good chance I'll delete it so the on-topic discussion can continue unimpeded.

A word to commenters who enjoy a hearty discussion of the issues at hand. When I was posting on Blog for Arizona, we had a number of people known as trolls, who would do everything they could to short-circuit a discussion or move it in another direction. Our advice there, and my advice here is: Please don't feed the trolls.

Before I get into my choices for the TUSD school board, I want to make sure readers understand that these are my own personal picks. They’re not official endorsements from the Tucson Weekly.

I’m going to begin the discussion of my support for Adelita Grijalva and Jen Darland by looking at the way school boards interact with superintendents regardless of the specific issues facing a district. Their interaction fits somewhere on a style-of-governance scale. At one end of the scale is a rubber-stamp board. The superintendent makes suggestions and recommendations, and the board simply signs off on them. On the other end is a micromanagement board. Board members peer over the superintendent’s shoulder watching his/her every move, play “Gotcha!” at every actual or perceived misstep and give frequent, detailed instructions about how to run the district.

Both extremes on the scale are examples of poor governance. Superintendents shouldn’t have a carte blanche for every hiring and policy decision they make, but they also shouldn’t be treated with the kind of suspicion and negativity Republican members of Congress show toward President Obama. An effective board should occupy a position somewhere between the two extremes, and it should slide up and down the scale depending on changing circumstances and the decisions that need to be made.

A board’s position on the governance scale is essentially a measure of its trust or distrust of the superintendent, and sometimes a measure of individual member’s sense of self-importance. Board members who believe they’ve chosen a competent, trustworthy person to head the district tend to trust the direction the superintendent is heading. They should look at the superintendent’s recommendations carefully and modify or vote against them when it makes sense, but when it’s a judgement call, they are likely to give the head of the district the benefit of the doubt. Their motto might be, “Trust but verify, and maintain a healthy skepticism.” Board members who question the competence and motives of the district head tend to distrust recommendations that come from the district, scrutinize every move in microscopic detail and only vote with the superintendent reluctantly. Their motto might be, “Distrust and scrutinize, because the superintendent is very likely incompetent and a scoundrel.” Sometimes, if their egos and sense of self-importance are large enough, they think they can run the district better than the person hired by the board to do the job. They make regular attempts to dictate district policy on issues large and small.

I happen to think the board made a good choice when it picked H.T. Sanchez to be superintendent. He’s not the perfect superintendent, but — full disclosure here — I wasn’t a perfect teacher in my 30+ years in the classroom, even though I gave my heart and soul to teaching and believe I did a good job in the classroom. I’d love to believe there’s such a thing as a perfect teacher or superintendent, but I’ve never met one myself. Like me and every other human being, Sanchez makes mistakes and will make more, I’m sure. But my sense is that he has the right focus and laudable goals, and he’s moving the district in a positive direction, both internally and in its relationship with the community. He’s willing to take chances, to make bold moves to improve students’ educations. On the whole, I trust his leadership, though I’m ready and willing to criticize him when I think he’s making a serious error.