Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall sizes up whether Donald Trump's feud with Sen. John McCain will hurt his presidential campaign:

Is Trump a joke? Of course, he is. But if we judge politicians by any other standard than their ability to garner votes and polling support, we'll soon run out of candidates. If clowns are above your dignity to report on, find another line of work. Especially with this primary field. Trump isn't a distraction or mere entertainment any more than the rest of the GOP field is. In fact, this version of his candidacy (I can imagine him running more as a Perot-type centrist figure in earlier cycles) is the logical end result of the Tea Party-ization of the GOP since 2009. Trump is running an angry, populist campaign focused on xenophobia and "I don't care what you think" aggression against 'the establishment' and 'elites' of all stripes. To think that trash talk against an establishment favorite, who is only marginally relevant to the politics of the moment in any case, will upset that apple cart is to thoroughly misunderstand the politics of the moment. Trump is the Frankenstein's Hair Monster, finally walking among us, who is the inevitable product of a decades long embrace of clown-show anti-establishmentism and the stoking of xenophobic and racial paranoia.

Kayla is too sweet for her own good! Easily stealing the hearts of many since being at Humane Society of Southern Arizona for four months, Kayla is one darling pup! Kayla is gentle, playful, easy to walk, and has a beautiful temperament. Although this adorable girl can be quite shy in some situations, she is likely to warm up quickly to those that give her a good back-scratch. Kayla is looking for an indoor lifestyle with a family that has a calm home environment, no cats, and lots of love to give. Kayla will need patience and plenty of adjustment time as well. If given the chance, this sweetheart will easily become the furry love of your life! Please come by HSSA today to meet precious Kayla.

Kayla—3.5-years-old —Pit Bull Mix—F—#803050

Another school year, another teacher shortage. This isn't a TUSD problem or a Tucson-area problem. One estimate says that Arizona has 1,000 fewer teachers than it needs. Another, which seems high to me, says that Maricopa County alone has 1,000 teacher slots to fill. Either way, it's a big, statewide problem. Emphasis on "statewide."

Why the shortage? Low pay, low funding for support and supplies, too many students in each classroom. And let's not underestimate the importance of the anti-teacher, anti-"government school" rhetoric that makes teachers feel less valued. Why go into, or stay in, a low paying, stressful job if everyone keeps telling you how much you suck? Arizona teachers are leaving the profession or moving elsewhere to teach. Fewer college students are choosing teaching as a profession.

I keep hearing from some quarters that teachers are underworked look at all those vacations they get!—so they don't deserve more pay, and the reason there are so many bad teachers is because the union won't let districts fire them. Now, I'm not an economist and I don't play one on The Range, but it seems to me there are a few basic economic flaws with both those arguments.

If teachers are underworked and overpaid, people should be lining up to get one of those cushy jobs. Districts should be fighting applicants off with a stick. That's the way the marketplace works, right? People gravitate toward the most attractive jobs. And once prospective teachers land their jobs, after they get through popping champagne corks and celebrating their unbelievable good fortune, they should hold onto those jobs until retirement forces them out the door.

So why aren't college departments of education turning away students who want to sign up? Why aren't districts getting more applications than they can handle? Why do young teachers leave the profession in such high numbers?

Recently, the Goldwater Institute held a press conference announcing the filing of a class action lawsuit challenging race based separate and unequal treatment regarding foster and adoptive placement of Native American children.

Today’s existing problems can be traced back over one hundred years to the late 19th and early 20th Centuries when many Native American children were removed from reservations and placed in boarding schools or families with no tribal ties. These policies had a profound and deleterious effect on the ability of Native American tribes to maintain both their respective communities and cultures.

In light of this history, the Congress of the United States passed the Indian Child Welfare Act in 1978. The purpose of the act was to provide tribes with jurisdiction over the process of child foster and adoptive placement thereby maintaining the integrity of reservation community and tribal culture.

While the goals of the ICWA are laudable, many unintended consequences have resulted from putting the interests of the tribe over the needs and interests of the child.

The Equal Protection for Indian Children organization offers the story of Laurynn Whiteshield as an example of unintended consequences:

Laurynn spent most of her life in a home where she was loved and protected. From the time she was nine months old, she and her twin sister, Michaela, were raised by Jeanine Kersey-Russell, a Methodist minister and third-generation foster parent in Bismarck, North Dakota.

When the twins were almost three years old, the county sought to make them available for adoption. But Laurynn and Michaela were not ordinary children. They were Indians.

And because they were Indians, their fates hinged on the Indian Child Welfare Act, a federal law passed in 1978 to prevent the breakup of Indian families and to protect tribal interests in child welfare cases.

The Spirit Lake Sioux tribe had shown no interest in the twins while they were in foster care. But once the prospect of adoption was raised, the tribe invoked its powers under ICWA and ordered the children returned to the reservation, where they were placed in the home of their grandfather in May 2013. Thirty-seven days later, Laurynn was dead, thrown down an embankment by her grandfather’s wife, who had a long history of abuse, neglect, endangerment, and abandonment involving her own children.

The Loft Cinema is once again entertaining the children of our community with the Loft Kids Fest, featuring everything from Harry Potter to Spongebob Squarepants. The films start every morning at 10 a.m. beginning Saturday, July 18, and continuing through Sunday, July 26. You can see the whole schedule here, but our favorite is the Looney Toons collection that will screen on Friday, July 24. Best of all, the whole thing is free.

Here's what The Loft has to say:

LET THE FUN BEGIN! Super summer excitement returns to The Loft Cinema with our ninth annual Loft Kids Fest! Each morning, children and their parents can experience some of the best family-friendly films of all-time, along with a fabulous animated short before every feature! There’s also fun games, hands-on activities, live performances, great giveaways, tons-o-free-popcorn and crazy surprises. And best of all, it’s FREE!

The festival kicks off at 5:30 p.m. tonight with a party at Trail Dust Town, 6541 E. Tanque Verde Road. The deets:

To celebrate the kick-off of the 2015 Loft Kids Fest, Trail Dust Town will have free festivities, games and more, including a visit from the eegee’s Party Van! There will also be Harry-Potter themed fun, live music by The Nap Skippers and One Man Train and we’ll be joined by our community partners Whole Foods, the Department of Transportation, the Children’s Museum Tucson, El Grupo Youth Cycling, ATA Martial Arts, Hermitage No-Kill Cat Shelter, Western Institute for Leadership Development, the Harry Potter Library Group, Playformance, Parenting Forward in Tucson, Loving Hearts Foster Care, Usborne Books and the Arizona Families blog.

Trail Dust Town is the in-town destination for old-west family fun! Enjoy wild west stunt shows, amusement rides, gift shops, and Pinnacle Peak Steakhouse!

I could write something cute, but we both know you're just here for the link. 

Email me ([email protected]) if you're having trouble logging in. Do your due diligence and make sure you can back up each of the (minimum 30) votes you submit. Ballots are due August 2.

Here's to a weekend of monsoons, Ice Cream and passing judgement on each and every finalist on the list. 

Vote.

This may be one of the best lines of dialogue I've read in the paper in a long time.

According to Howard Fischer's article about Arizona's continuing effort to deny drivers licenses to Dreamers, one of the federal appellate judges got a bit testy—maybe "truthful" is a better word—with an Arizona assistant attorney general trying to make the case that the state should be able to reenact the license ban another judge threw out last December.

Judge Harry Pregerson pointed out that those in the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program have been driving legally since a trial judge ordered the state to reverse its ban and begin issuing them licenses in December.

“We know—at least I know—that no horrible thing has happened on the highways of Arizona since this went into effect,” he said during arguments here.

He then addressed Assistant Attorney General Dominic Draye, who was asking the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse what the trial judge had ordered.

“What is the problem?” he asked.

“Does it come down to racism?” Pregerson continued. “Does it come down to discrimination against these people? What else does it come down to?”

That suggestion left Draye confounded.

“Judge, I wish you wouldn’t say things like that,” he responded.

But Pregerson would not back down.

“I’m saying it because it’s the truth,” the judge said.

“Judge, I wish you wouldn’t say things like that." Priceless. "Please don't call our racist attempts to deny drivers licenses to Dreamers 'racism.' We prefer to refer to it as 'rule of law' when we screw over Latinos."

The state and immigration rights advocates were back in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today for a hearing against a district court judge's injunction that allowed undocumented youth protected under Obama's 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival to get licenses in Arizona. 

After years in and out of court, U.S. District Judge David Campbell issued in December a preliminary injunction that immediately allowed about 22,000 DREAMers to get licenses. The following month he made it permanent: Arizona cannot deny  DREAMers driver's licenses. Since 2012, federal courts continuously ruled against former governor Jan Brewer's executive action, which she announced the same day the DACA program went into effect. The Ninth Circuit has even said in the past that the policy is likely unconstitutional and that it shouldn't proceed.

In Dec. 17, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy rejected a last-minute appeal by the state, and that's when Campbell issued a preliminary injunction. DREAMers began getting licenses five days later.

In February, we heard news that Arizona's new Attorney General Mark Brnovich would continue appealing. 

Nicholas Espíritu, an attorney with the National Immigration Law Center, which is one of the plaintiffs in the case, says they wanted the court to know that Arizona's rationale hasn't changed. "They continue to think that they have the right to discriminate against DACA recipients, and continue to justify their desire to discriminate. The Supreme Court has said that Arizona can't discriminate against DREAMers, and we feel the Ninth Circuit will continue to hold that."

Prior to that, in July of 2014, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the policy was probably  unconstitutional and that DREAMers—who have permission from the federal government to live and work in the U.S.—are "seriously impaired by their inability to get driver’s licenses," a statement by the National Immigration Law Center said.

Arizona is the only state in the country continuing to resist licenses for DREAMers. 

It's unclear when the parties will hear from the Ninth Circuit, but immigration advocates are confident this will be another legal failure for Arizona.

Undocumented youth who got a three-year work permit under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals have to return them immediately or face getting the relief revoked, according to the U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services. 

More than 2,000 of these were approved and sent out after U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen of Texas issued on Feb. 16 a temporary injunction against the expanded version of DACA (when President Obama first issued the program in 2012, the work permit had to be renewed every two years) and a relief program for parents of U.S. citizen or legal resident children, known as DAPA.

"USCIS has taken action to correct this issue for these individuals and has updated their records to reflect a two-year period of deferred action and employment authorization," a statement from the agency says.

The 2014 executive actions, eliminated age restrictions for those applying for DACA and extended the work permit from two years to three years. So, those who qualified for the first DACA, upon renewal, could get a three-year work permit. About 2,100 recipients wrongfully ended up getting a three-year work permit after Feb. 16. Those who only qualify for the second DACA were supposed to begin sending off their applications in February, but, for obvious reasons, could not move forward with that.

The agency has re-issued and mailed the corrected two-year work permits and has also notified them that the three-year permits are not valid and must be immediately returned, along with any other notices. About 1,000 people already returned their permits.

People who have to return their three-year permits and haven't done so will be contacted by USCIS either by phone or in person. They might even be coming to homes, according to the statement. Immigration rights advocates like the National Immigration Law Center and United We Dream are urging people to send them back and to contact the group for any help. The deadline is July 17.

USCIS also advises people to contact the agency with any questions. Their website has a helpful chart, here.

Last week, the Obama administration presented its oral arguments to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, defending both programs, which came to be after the president issued several executive actions in November. Hanen temporarily blocked the two in February, while a lawsuit on behalf of 26 states—led by Texas and that includes Arizona—plays out in court.

Both programs would reportedly benefit about 5 million undocumented people in the U.S.

According to an article by the Wall Street Journal, legal experts say the case is probably headed to the U.S. Supreme Court and then back to Hanen's desk.

Ms. Magazine just published an essay written by one of them women who served time in prison alongside Piper Kerman. After a relatively short prison sentence, Kerman wrote about the experience in her book Orange is the New Black: My Year in a Women's Prison, the book the popular television show of a similar name was based on. 

Beatrice Codianni, the former prisoner who penned the essay, says the television shop changed more than the main character's last name. Codianni said that while the book was an accurate portrayal of Danbury, Litchfield's real-world inspirtaion, she had to give up on the Netflix series two seasons in.