In his new album released last month Bob Dylan returns to his roots, covering classic American tunes.

Dylan’s 37^th studio album Fallen Angels covers classic American songs like “It had to be you,” and “Young at Heart.” The new album is a follow up to his 2015 cover album Strangers in the Night. Most notably known for Dylan’s interpretation of “That Lucky old Sun,” which in my opinion has as much power and feeling in it as Ray Charles’ approach to the song.

As Dylan could be considered the greatest living lyricist, it’s understandable that some Dylan fans are upset to see the release of two consecutive cover albums.

I’ll agree it would be great to hear some original songs from a man whose lyrics helped shape the
culture of multiple generations, but listening to the new album I think Dylan fans can appreciate what to me sounds like the raspy reflections of an old musician who began his career bumming around New York City singing covers.

Fallen Angels has a very mellow sound, the kind of album one might put on after a long day’s work and enjoy with a glass of wine. Most of the songs on the album are covers of songs performed traditionally by big band musicians.

Comparing Dylan’s style on the album to other musicians I would say it sounds like Louis Armstrong and Frank Sinatra met in a dive bar and did a quick set with the house band. Now, don’t get over excited. Dylan’s album is by no means as epic as Sinatra and Armstrong singing together in a dive bar would be, but their combined sound with support from a small band would sound similar to Dylan’s new album.

As far as Bob Dylan albums go Fallen Angels is no Blood on the Tracks, but it was never meant to be. For what it is, it’s a really good album that in many ways shows the early influences of a music legend.

You've got until July 31, but why wait? The second round of Best of Tucson voting has opened up and it's time for you to cast your votes. 


Then, when you're done appreciating the best of the Old Pueblo, grab some ice cream and plan a trip to Hermosillo. 

Head over to the Pima County Courthouse, 115 N. Church Ave, for a movie under the stars every Thursday this month. 

The Cinema La Placita Outdoor Film Series, which has shown classic films for 16 summers in the plaza of La Placita Village, is moving to the historic Pima County Courthouse.   Starting this week there will be a classic film shown every Thursday of June at 7:30 p.m in the courthouse courtyard. 

For just $3 you can pull up a chair, bring a blanket and enjoy some fresh popcorn, all while watching a classic film and enjoying Tucson's relaxing summer evenings.

For every dollar you pay in admission you can also vote on which films you think they should screen next month. 

The movies they're screening this month are as follows:

June 09- To Catch a Thief (1953)

June 16- Born Yesterday (1950)

June 23- Roman Holiday (1953)

June 30- Harvey (1950)

For more info call 520-326-5282 or visit their website. 

I know I have wondered, as I remove my glasses and slowly stumble into bed, if perhaps I've been over zealous on my Netflix binging. Well, if I am, it turns out I'm not alone.

Today Netflix released a "binge scale," offering a little insight into the streaming habits of the Netflix community at large.

I wrote a long post yesterday saying, basically, that Ducey and other Republican political leaders will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into increasing funding for education. Vocal public support for education and outcries against budget cuts are the reasons we haven't had more education cuts in the last two state budgets, and it's the primary reason Ducey proposed Prop 123 instead of simply ignoring the court ruling that the state replace the money it illegally stole from the schools.

As a group, conservatives want to cut funding of public education, in Arizona and around the country. Here are two representative examples of that line of thinking. One is a paper from Matthew Ladner who used to be the Goldwater Institute's education guy and was hugely influential in formulating Arizona education legislation, including our Empowerment Scholarship Accounts, aka Vouchers on steroids. Though he's moved on to Bush's education organization, Foundation for Excellence in Education, his influence here continues. Ladner was one of three people who formed Ducey's education transition team when he became governor.

The other example is John Huppenthal, our Superintendent of Public Instruction before Diane Douglas, in a comment he wrote on one of my posts last week.

In 2015, Ladner created one of the research pieces he cranks out at regular intervals. He wrote it in his capacity as Senior Advisor for  Bush's Foundation for Excellence in Education, which is one of many well funded "education reform"/privatization groups, and as a Senior Fellow for the libertarian Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, named after its founder and early proponent of vouchers, Milton Friedman.

Ladner's basic thesis is, we need to spend less money on education and get better results. "We cannot sustain the current level of [education] spending," he writes. Instead, we have to create "a virtuous cycle of climbing [educational] outcomes and declining costs." His solution is to funnel more students into charter schools, which he says are cheaper and have better outcomes than school districts, assertions that are questionable at best, and into vouchers for private schools. Our current public schools are the problem, according to Ladner, and "school choice" is the magic pony that will allow us to do more with less.

This is the true story of Palestinian Mohammed Asaf, who overcame many obstacles to win Arab Idol in 2013.

The film starts with Asaf as a kid, playing music for weddings for his little sister. She dies from kidney failure, giving Asaf the motivation to leave Palestine and audition for the show when he grows up (he’s played by Tawfeek Barhorn as an adult).

I’ll say this; the movie is much better than the American Idol movie, From Justin to Kelly. That said, it still isn’t very good. It has a disease-of-the-week movie feel in the first half, and feels like a movie we’ve seen many times before in it’s second half. The kids are cute enough, but the movie definitely loses its way before credits roll, and Barhorn isn’t a very engaging performer.

The final moments flip to the actual Asaf winning Idol, which got me to thinking that the filmmakers would’ve been better off had they just gone the documentary route. Watching footage of Asaf triumph is enough.

I've been writing a lot lately about how, since Prop 123 passed, Ducey sidesteps the issue of education funding every time he's asked what his "next step" will be. He wants the next step to be for people to stop pestering him so he can get back to cutting education funding in next year's budget—or if he has no other choice, continue with the same bottom-of-the-barrel funding which has been the norm for too many years—but we're not likely to hear him say that out loud.

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. As I've written in a number of posts, I never expected Ducey to spend a penny more on education after Prop 123 without a fight, nor did other pro-education folks like me who held their noses and voted for what we considered to be the least bad option. There's only one way to get more money for education out of the majority of elected Republicans who are dead set on dismantling our system of public education, and that's to keep up the pressure.

Remember, Ducey and his cronies didn't create Prop 123 because they liked the idea of increasing education funding. It was only when they realized public opinion was turning against them that they concocted a plan that would add some money to education without touching the budget. It'll take far more public pressure to make them actually commit to more money for education this time, because it will have to come from the state coffers, not the state land trust. Success is far from guaranteed, but if there's no fight, I can guarantee Ducey's "next step" will be to step away from the funding issue as quickly as he can.

Ducey didn't suggest Prop 123 because he wanted to put more money into education. He and his buddies were perfectly happy to continue ignoring the court's ruling that they have to replace the money they illegally stole from the schools, and to continue cutting the education budget year after year. But in February, 2015, they had the fear of God The Voters put into them courtesy of a Morrison Institute poll. The poll found that voters wanted more money for education, even if it meant more taxes.

Nearly two-thirds of Arizonans, including more than 50 percent of Republicans, would be willing to pay an additional $200 in state taxes annually to better fund K-12 education.

Those are frightening polling numbers if you're Ducey and the Republican leadership. If voters want more money for schools, and they say they're willing to pay more taxes to fund it, that threatens the Republican agenda of slashing the budget and cutting taxes for their buddies. They feared, if they continuing to stonewall the court order, they might find themselves with a voter rebellion on their hands. People might start listening to Democrats and moderate Republicans. Anti-public education conservative legislators could find their jobs threatened at the ballot box. They had to do something.

Today is, miraculously, not quite the scorcher yesterday was. Even so, it is hot as all hell outside and you should get some ice cream. But from where?

Well, maybe from one of the five (or five of the five) local ice cream places Tucson has deemed the best.

We've just opened the second round of Best of Tucson voting. We tallied your votes from round one and came up with a list of finalists based on your input. 

You've got until July 31 to fill out your ballot, and you should absolutely spend some of that time taste testing the restaurants recommended in the Casual Dining, Restaurant and Cultura sections. 

The five finalists for Best Ice Cream are: Allegro Gelato, Cashew Cow, Frost Gelato, the HUB Ice Cream Factory and the Screamery. Report back when you're finished. 

Busy Friday? We're giving away one pair of tickets to see Sammy Hagar & The Circle at AVA Amphitheater. 

AVA has this to say about the show:

For almost forty years, Sammy Hagar has been one of rock music’s most dynamic and prolific artists. From breaking into the industry with the seminal hard rock band Montrose to his multiplatinum solo career to his ride as the front man of Van Halen, the “Red Rocker” has set the tone for some of the greatest rock anthems ever written with songs like “I Can’t Drive 55,” “Right Now,” and “Why Can’t This Be Love.” He’s earned the highest respect of the music industry with a Grammy Award and induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame alongside Van Halen and is currently on his fourth platinum run with the super group Chickenfoot. Along his journey, Hagar has also become a dedicated philanthropist, a New York Times best-selling author and auspicious entrepreneur.

...

Aside from making his mark as a hit songwriter and lead vocalist, Hagar has played with a succession of legendary guitar players; from Ronnie Montrose and Neal Schon to Eddie Van Halen and Joe Satriani and his current group, The Circle, which also features former Van Halen bassist Michael Anthony, Jason Bonham and Vic Johnson. 

The concert is this Friday, June 10 at 8 p.m. We'll pick a winner midday Wednesday, June 8. Good luck!

Monday, the Star decided to run a story about many states' refusal to raise taxes on its front page. For me, the placement of the article is bigger news than the story itself. Front page. That means the editors think it's something people want to read about. It may be sinking in, finally, that we need to be talking about the fact that perennial tax cuts, especially for the rich, are bad for a state's health.

There's not much new in the story. It's common knowledge that lots of states, Arizona included, have been cutting taxes and services. It's not as well understood that, as the article states, the level of borrowing in the form of bonding by cities and counties is down at a time when, with interest rates at record lows, borrowing money to fund new projects and fix infrastructure is a bargain.

The article comes to the conclusion:

At some point, something will have to give. Sooner or later they'll have to raise taxes.

However, the article ignores one very important point. It doesn't mention that, at a time of growing income inequality, when money is being concentrated in the hands of the rich and super-rich, when wages continue to stagnate as they have for over thirty years, we don't need across-the-board tax hikes. What we need is for the wealthiest among us to pay their fair share. Bernie Sanders has been shouting about increasing taxes on the rich. Hillary Clinton is saying similar things, though at a lower volume. And Arizona Democrats are making cautious—very cautious, far too cautious—statements in the same direction. We need a steady drumbeat from progressives to counter the thunder of misinformation about taxes coming from conservatives.

In Arizona, we're not "Taxed Enough Already," as conservatives claim, certainly not in terms of total state and local taxes. It could be argued that we were taxed enough before, but not now.

Arizonans paid 30 percent less in general-fund taxes in 2015 than they did in 1992, according to the analysis by [Arizona State University's W.P. Carey School of Business] economists Dennis Hoffman and Tom Rex.

If today's tax rates were the same as in 1992, we'd have about $4 billion more a year in state revenue. If, say, we put half of that into K-12 education—a $2 billion yearly bump compared to the $350 million added by Prop 123—we'd move up 15 steps in per student funding, from 49th to 34th. And that would still leave another $2 billion a year to take help pay for some of our other under-funded state needs.