The Tucson Metro Chamber's Southern Arizona Business Political Action Committee has released its endorsements in this year's Tucson City Council races—and the business group ended up issuing no endorsements in the Ward 1 race between incumbent Democrat Regina Romero and GOP challenger Bill Ward; a thumbs-up to incumbent Democrat Paul Cunningham in Ward 2; and endorsements to both Democratic incumbent Shirley Scott and GOP challenger Margaret Burkholder in Ward 4.

Here's the Chamber's announcement:

City of Tucson Council Race Ward 1

The Southern Arizona Business PAC has decided to make no endorsement in this race this year.

SAZPAC believes the incumbent, Regina Romero, has not exemplified the policies, practices or votes that support a pro-growth, pro-jobs environment, resulting in Tucson continuing to be one of the most economically depressed communities in the entire nation. Despite her continual claims to support Tucson's economic progress, her actions and votes say otherwise. Council Member Romero's opposition to one of the nation’s largest retailers, opposition to the proposed $100 million Grand Canyon University project in her ward and the lack of progress on the City-owned "west-side" properties do not align with economic expansion and job creation. The west side of Tucson desperately needs representation that will create jobs and opportunity. The Chamber does, however, appreciate Council Member Romero's support of the Chamber's Project Prosperity program.

SAZPAC also believes the challenger, Bill Hunt, does not exemplify the policies and practices that will support a pro-growth, pro-jobs environment. Mr. Hunt opposes annexation of unincorporated parts of our metro area into the City of Tucson. With incorporation being a substantial issue in Pima County, it was expected that a candidate would better understand this issue and the fiscal implications to the City of Tucson and our region. Further, SAZPAC believes Mr. Hunt lacks the organization and financial means to be a viable candidate in a citywide race.

City of Tucson Council Race Ward 2

Every week, Casa Video is kind enough to send us a list of their top 10 most-rented DVDs. We print the list in the paper's Cinema section, hopefully reminding someone about a film they've been meaning to see.

Here's the thing about newspapers: they run low on space. The internet doesn't. So, while we'll still shoot to get the list in print each week, you'll definitely be able to find it here on our blog.

Basically, here's what you (and everyone else in Tucson) want to watch this weekend:


1.  Furious 7

2.  Mad Max: Fury Road

3.  Cinderella

Border Patrol agent Lonnie Swartz has been charged with second degree murder in the 2012 Nogales border shooting 16-year-old José Antonio Elena Rodríguez. 

Witnesses of the shooting say Elena Rodriguez was walking home on the Sonora side of the fence, when he was struck by at least eight bullets from the Arizona side. Border Patrol agents allege someone threw rocks at them, which triggered the shooting. 

Here's part of a write up by the Huffington Post's Roque Planas:

The killing of 16-year-old José Antonio Elena Rodríguez sparked an outcry on the Mexican side of the border in the city of Nogales and cast a spotlight on the Border Patrol’s guidelines for using lethal force.

"The Elena Rodriguez Family is grateful to the DOJ (Department of Justice) for this first step in the pursuit of justice, and remain steadfast in their resolve to seek full transparency from the U.S. Border Patrol on behalf of Jose Antonio," Luis Parra, an attorney for Elena Rodríguez's mother, told The Associated Press.

Swartz’s attorney, Sean Chapman, said he has yet to see the indictment.

“He’s going to plead not guilty and fight the charges, but I really can’t comment beyond that,” Chapman told The Huffington Post.

Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who represents Elena Rodríguez’s mother in a separate civil lawsuit, described the indictment as unprecedented.

“We believe it was justified and that it took too long,” Gelernt told HuffPost. “As far as we know, this is the first time there’s been an indictment in a cross-border shooting, so it’s a big deal … It sends an enormous message to the Border Patrol going forward that they cannot engage in these types of actions.”

“But it also has tremendous importance for the family,” Gelernt added. “They’ve been going against this faceless entity in the United States, not knowing if anyone is taking their claims seriously.”

A spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Border Patrol’s parent agency, declined to discuss the charge, saying, “It would be inappropriate for CBP to comment because it is an ongoing investigation.”

Ducey's PR people were running some new slogans up the Capitol flagpole to see if anyone saluted. They were trying out phrases on one another to see if anyone got chills ("I'm getting chills!"). They were tossing tag lines around at three martini lunches, or whatever ad men and women drink at lunch these days. And then, there it was, a slogan that's totally awesome. It's so awesome, it rocks!

That's the slogan: "AZAWESOME: why arizona rocks" (with AZ in gold and AWESOME in red so people don't ask, "What's a zawesome?")

The Arizona Commerce Authority sent out an email with that embarrassingly cool-thirty-years-ago slogan under the state seal. How did they get there, I asked myself. How did they land on those words, those phrases? Let me offer a possible scenario.

"Awesome" reached its pinnacle of teenage usage in the 80s, around the time Ducey was in his middle to late teenage years. Think surfer dude Jeff Spicoli in the 1982 film, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, exclaiming, "Totally Awesome!" It has that "Makes me feel young and cool again" ring to the 40-to-50 year old set. And if any of them have young kids around the house, they probably know the catchy, child-friendly tune, "Everything is Awesome!!!" from The Lego Movie ("Everything is awesome/Everything is cool when you're part of a team/Everything is awesome when we're living our dream"). How can you beat that? You're a cool dude, you're a cool parent. It's edgy, it's family friendly. It's AWESOME!

So that's the word-phrase they chose to brand Arizona: AZ-AWESOME. When it started to come together, when they were batting it around to see if they hit it out of the park, I imagine someone gushed, "A. Z. Awesome. I'm getting chills! That rocks!" "Even better!" someone else exclaimed. "Arizona is not only awesome. It rocks!" [Fun fact: Ducey called The Stones one of his favorite bands in a tweet (His fave 60s Stones song: Jumpin' Jack Flash).] And so a "We're still cool even though we're middle-aged PR people and a governor" slogan is born.

Where does Mark 16:15, which I mentioned in the headline, come in?

Ricky Martin.

Some people remember him from his Menudo days, some learned who he was overnight because of his (let's just admit it it) electrifying performance at the 1999 Grammys, and some discovered him through hearing their friends and loved ones brutalize "Livin' La Vida Loca" when it came on radio.

I used to watch him on TV, with my Nana, on an anglo novela called "General Hospital," where he played Miguel, a character whose reason for being is explained on the GH Wiki as "going on a tour."

Taking his boy band days into consideration, Martin has been a performing, touring musician for about 30 years and last night his One World Tour stopped at AVA Amphitheater.

His concert was full of energy, and he kept his fans dancing all night, opening the show with one of his newer singles, "Mr. Put It Down." But the crowd went crazy when he went into his back catalog, singing classic songs like "Vuelve," "Livin’ La Vida Loca," and "Tú Recuerdo."

During the show, Martin announced that one of his newest songs, "Disparo al Corazón," from his album "A Quien Quiere Escuchar," has nominated for a Latin Grammy.

His next stop will be in Phoenix on Sept. 26. at Comerica Theater. Tickets are still on sale, for those of you who missed last night's show (or those of you who want a double-dose of Mr. Martin).

Republican Congressman Paul Gosar says it is "unthinkable" that some states have granted undocumented immigrants in-state college tuition, so he's sponsoring legislation that would ensure this doesn't happen anymore. 

"...other legal American citizens, playing by the rules, have to pay out-of-state tuition to attend public universities," he said in a statement to the media. "With a stagnant economy, American students are facing enough challenges upon graduating from college and shouldn't bear more financial burdens as a result of loopholes crafted by attorneys that pull illegal aliens not in lawful immigration statues ahead of  U.S. citizens."

In May, the Arizona Board of Regents voted to grant undocumented students, also known as DREAMers, in-state tuition at the three public universities. It marked a big win for DREAMers, who'd been demanding that benefit for at least the past three years. (Mind you, most of them have lived in Arizona since they were children and graduated high school or got a GED in the state. Also, in 2012 President Obama gave them a two-year renewable work permit and permission to be in the country—an executive action called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.)

In past years, ABOR followed Prop 300—a referendum approved by Arizona voters in 2006 that says university students who are not U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents do not qualify for in-state tuition or financial aid "funded or subsidized by state monies." Among Prop 300's required documents to prove residency in the state are driver's licenses, a W-2, an employee ID badge with photo, etc. DACA recipients have been getting driver's licenses since December 2014, and, ever since DACA went into effect in 2012, they've had work permits, which means a job, which equals paying taxes, which equals a W-2. 

You know the drill. We'll draw a winner mid day Friday, and you have to be able to pick the tickets up before our office closes at 5 p.m. We're located near the Foothills Mall. 

Oh, and the game is against UCLA at 5 p.m. on Saturday.

Tuesday was the day Ducey's Classrooms First Initiatives Council was scheduled to release its preliminary recommendations for changing Arizona's school funding formula (Final recommendations are supposed to be presented December 22). The news out of the council is, there's not much news, only wisps and smoke trails. The council made some general pronouncements, but if the devil is in the details, the old trickster is hiding behind a curtain. The predictions I made yesterday hold up pretty well, but that's not saying much because, well, the council didn't have much to say.

Here are some take-aways.

Changing the funding formula to create "equity" between district and charter schools is one of the key goals of the group. How are they going to do it? No clue. Equity is very much in the eye of the beholder on this issue. The charter folks definitely want more money while the district folks know more for charters means less for them.

There's no telling where the issue of special education funding is going. Maybe the council wants more funding overall. Maybe it wants to recalibrate the formula to make sure districts are properly reimbursed for the extra costs of educating these students. Maybe it wants to remove the targeted special funding for students who have less severe special needs like high functioning students with dyslexia or speech impairment and just fold that money into the overall per student funding. When the council talks about "special education," is it including funding for ELL students? It doesn't say.

The council is definitely pushing for more money for schools with an "A" grade from the state. Oh, and if "B" or "C" schools are showing progress, they can get some extra money too. This is the most blatant funding shift from schools in low income areas to schools in high income areas, since the schools in high rent districts get the vast majority of the "A" ratings, not because their staffs are better or harder working but because their privileged students tend to be high performers by definition.

Admittedly, I was a huge Arcade Fire fan after hearing their breakthrough album, Funeral, and seeing their exuberant, festival-stealing performance at first Coachella in 2005. Since then, my enthusiasm waned a bit after seeing them too many times and listening to their subsequent mediocre albums, Neon Bible and The Suburbs. Their very good 2013 album, Reflektor, actually got me a little fired up about them again, so I went into this movie hoping for a reaffirming glimpse of the band as it stands today. This pseudo documentary, which mashes together concert footage snippets with impressionistic shots of the band and overdubs of bandleader Win Butler waxing philosophic, is a total mess. It makes me kind of want to hate the band. The performances (we never see an entire song) sound god awful for the most part, and nobody in the band, especially Butler, has anything interesting to say during the non-musical bits. Director Kahlil Joseph basically shot a ton of footage during the band’s big tour, filmed them in the studio and other various locales, and slapped all of this crap together with no semblance of order or purpose. The result is tedious, and makes the band look like a bunch of pretentious fucks that like themselves a little too much. Mind you, I’ve seen these guys live many times, and while Butler can come off a bit pompous at times, he’s a fun and even gracious live presence, as is the band. This film betrays them in every way possible. (The version of the film I saw contained a postscript with a couple of the band members, including Butler, doing a more traditional interview about the album and film. The bonus footage is MUCH better than the movie itself). 

The Obama administration has deported approximately 3.7 million undocumented people between 2009 and 2013 (one of the many reasons immigration advocates granted him the nickname "deporter in chief"). Of that number, it's reported that probably half a million of them are parents. As a result, hundreds of thousands of U.S.-born children have either one or no parents in the U.S., according to the Migration Policy Institute.

So, what are the mental and economic effects on these kids? (By the way, there are roughly 5.3 million U.S. citizen children whose parents are undocumented.) The MPI tackled those questions, and recently put out two reports with some answers. 

The reports were a collaborative effort between the MPI and the Urban Institute, funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Immigration and Customs Enforcement helped out with some research, and part of the process involved fieldwork in five sites: California, Florida, Illinois, South Carolina and Texas. 

Unsurprisingly, MPI found that economic hardship among mixed-status families gets worse when a parent is detained and deported. The Washington Post wrote a nice summary: