What Governor Ducey said isn't a lie, exactly. It's classic bullshit, and it tells you all you need to know about the most important part of his education budget agenda.

It's in an article about how Arizona teachers' low salaries make them low hanging fruit for recruiters from nearby states where salaries are higher and benefits are better. That's one reason Arizona education advocates want Ducey to put most of his proposed $114 education budget hike into increasing salaries instead of the $13.6 million he allocated, to help retain current teachers and attract new ones. Here's Ducey's response.

The governor said he wants to see higher salaries for teachers. But he also wants full-day kindergarten, teacher debt forgiveness and broadband Internet in rural school districts, and he indicated that he’s unwilling to divert money from those priorities into more money for teacher salaries.

The best definition of bullshit is a misrepresentation which is intended to deceive. It doesn't have to be a lie to be bullshit. It can actually be substantially true so long as it serves its deceptive purpose. And Ducey's excuse for not putting more into teacher salaries is bullshit pure and simple.

Ducey's highest priority in his proposed education budget is what he calls "results-based funding." He wants $38 million for that program, close to three times what he designated for the salary boost. But he left that out of his "priorities" in the statement above.

Let's see how much the "priorities" he mentioned add up to. Full day kindergarten? He put $10 million into that pot. Teacher debt forgiveness? That comes to $250,000 — a quarter million — added to money already in the budget. Broadband internet for rural districts? That adds another $5 million. The total is fifteen-and-a-quarter million, less than half the $38 million in his "results-based funding" request. If you add all the "priorities" money to the $13.6 million he put into teacher raises, the increase goes from a dollar a day all the way up to two dollars.

A phone case with an intergalactic kitten. A coffee mug with enough turquoise cactuses that it practically screams "Tucson." Laptop case stickers with quotes from your favorite sitcom or Netflix binge. Even products with the campaign logos of whatever political statement you want to make. It's all on Redbubble, and once you peruse their site, you'll be convinced it just "gets" you.


Redbubble is an online marketplace that sells art designs from more than 400,000 independent artists. This artwork can be placed on your pick of clothing, phone cases, stickers, wall art, home decoration, stationery and bags for a relatively low price. With as many options as you have for artists, it is near impossible to not leave the site with items emptied from your shopping cart and on their way to your home.

My last order from Redbubble consisted of 10 laptop case stickers that encompass the essence of my personality and interests perfectly, and the entire order was only $15.66. The best part of the order, being so incredibly busy as many of us are, was that it took me approximately 20 minutes maximum to find all these unique designs and consequently fall in love with them. They were delivered in both a protective and aesthetically-pleasing envelope.


I can personally vouch for these stickers' high quality, too. My laptop has now ventured to school, home, work and a friend's apartment for about a week now with these new bad boys and I have noticed they seem to be scratch-resistant and won't be peeling any time soon.

Personalize that phone case, laptop case, reusable water bottle or anything else your heart desires with this company. I'll definitely be a returning customer.

These state education funding numbers bear repeating, again and again and again, lest we forget that funding for K-12 schools and universities in Arizona plummeted after 2009. Two stories in Friday's Star—both by Howard Fischer, one including the Star's Yoohyun Jung—remind us of that important fact. Lest we forget.

[Unsolicited MSM plug: Support your local mainstream media. If you can afford it, buy a subscription to the Star. No other news outlet in Tucson provides so much information about what's happening at the local, state and national levels. Read it critically, of course, don't accept everything at face value, but if you want to know what's going on, it's essential reading. We need a thriving print media sector now more than ever (cough, Trump, cough). End of plug.]

The first story is about National School Choice Week, a faux-holiday I choose not to celebrate. The article includes a chart showing state funding for K-12 education over the past ten years. The numbers, by the way, aren't adjusted for inflation.

State funding of K-12 education on per-student basis:
Year — amount
2007-08 — $4,949
2008-09 — $4,427
2009-10 — $4,216
2010-11 — $3,894
2011-12 — $3,816
2012-13 — $3,861
2013-14 — $4,108
2014-15 — $4,169
2015-16 — $4,459
2016-17 — $4,529

We cut the largest percentage of our already-low per-student funding in the nation during the recession, and now we're still $400 per student below where we were ten years ago. That amounts to a $400 million yearly cut before adjusting for inflation. (The numbers above, by the way, aren't the total amount Arizona spends per student. That's the amount the state contributes to the total, which is around $7,200, 49th in the nation.)

Trump went after "sanctuary cities" with an executive order threatening to take away federal funds if they refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities in deporting undocumented immigrants. Mayors in cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Boston and New York, among others, came right back at him, along with some governors. And they may have the constitution on their side.

“Let me be clear,” California's Governor Jerry Brown said. “We will defend everybody—every man, woman and child who has come here for a better life and has contributed to the well-being of our state.”

"Our city is still a sanctuary city and we are going to remain a sanctuary city," said San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee.

“We will not be intimidated by the threat to federal funding,” Boston Mayor Marty Walsh said. “We have each other’s backs. And we have the Constitution of the United States of America on our side. . . . I will use all of my power within lawful means to protect all Boston residents—even if that means using City Hall itself as a last resort.”

I admit I'm a layman when it comes to economics. I studied a little Econ in college, though not enough to hurt me. Now and then I read newspaper and magazine columns by economists. So I don't claim any expertise in the field. But isn't the idea of Supply and Demand pretty basic? If the supply of a good or service is low and the demand is high, don't you need to raise the price so supply equals demand? Sure, there are other factors to consider, but that's where the discussion begins, right?

So if the supply of teachers in Arizona is far lower than the demand, if there are more classrooms than there are teachers to fill them, isn't it just economic common sense to admit we have to raise the price—the salaries—of teachers to meet the demand?

I guess we could try other strategies. We could lower the demand for teachers by cramming a few more kids into every classroom. Give six teachers five or six more kids each, and that would empty a classroom and eliminate the need for one teacher. The problem is, Arizona is already near the top in class size nationally—that's what happens when your education spending is at the bottom—so adding more students only bends our numbers further from the national average. Not to mention, it would drive some of our already over-stretched and over-stressed teachers around the bend, driving them out of the profession. That would make the problem worse, not better.

I guess everyone could try Governor Ducey's strategy of saying how much we all respect teachers. To be honest, that would help a little. When teachers work their asses off and are told what a lousy job they're doing, it doesn't make for a happy, healthy work environment. Who needs that kind of abuse to go along with a miserably low salary? The problem is, conservatives have spent decades and hundreds of millions of dollars trashing teachers—especially what they like to call "failing teachers" in "failing government schools." It's part of their campaign to lower school spending, demonize teacher unions and push school privatization. And it's worked. I've never seen a time when teachers get less respect from the public. So I doubt they're about to change their ways and mount a massive "love your local teacher" campaign. And even if they did, it wouldn't make a whole lot of difference so long as teachers are having trouble paying for food, housing and other basic living expenses. Giving them a gold star won't stop teachers from leaving or encourage new teachers to join the fold—not even if we include Ducey's other strategy of adding a dollar a day to show teachers how much we value them.

Some basketball players complain mightily when they're called for an obvious foul, then they adopt a look of shocked disbelief when the refs don't call a minor foul on the other team. If the player does it often enough, especially if he's a star, he may have a later foul overlooked or get a makeup foul called on the other side. If it's in front of a hometown crowd, the fans often join in as well—"What are ya, blind?" "Kill the ref!"—adding to the pressure on the officials calling the game. It's known as working the refs.

The Trump team are expert at working the refs, or in their case, working the press. During the primaries, Trump got far more coverage than any of his competitors. Even when it was unfavorable, it had an Entertainment Tonight, star quality feel to it—"Can you believe what this guy did? Amazing! You gotta love him." The constant coverage definitely helped his campaign. Nevertheless, he complained about the press with a combination of bitterness and glee, calling them the biggest liars in the world, and encouraged supporters at his rallies to join in the hate fest.

I won't try to rate the overall media coverage during the Trump/Clinton contest, since how you call that varies with the eye of the beholder. Recent revelations, however, about the intelligence community's investigations into ties between the Russian government and the Trump campaign which were known to the press but went virtually unreported at the same time Clinton-related emails were covered breathlessly, even when there was little newsworthy to report, are raising new questions about the press' refusal to publish potentially damning, politically damaging stories about the Trump-Putin connection. But Trump condemned the media like clockwork, as regularly as he called Hillary crooked and bragged that he would "Built the wall" and make Mexico pay for it.

No one knows if the Trump administration will use legislation or executive orders to rob the media of some of its freedom of expression. If that happens, the nation will be in deep, deep trouble. But we know his team is going to continue to work the refs every chance it gets. Trump used his recent press conference to condemn CNN by name, accusing it of spreading "Fake News" because it reported accurately that Trump had received a briefing paper about allegations of Russia's attempts to steer the election in his favor. When the press reported that the crowd at his inauguration was significantly smaller than Obama's in 2009, Trump sent his press secretary Sean Spicer to yell at them for stating the truth. Trump used his talk with the CIA to continue his condemnation of the press for its accurate coverage of the size of the crowd at his inauguration. And spinmeister extraordinaire Kellyanne Conway regularly threatens the media, warning them something terrible might happen to them if they refuse to behave.

From the election until today, we've watched Trump strutting and fretting in Trump Tower. We've listened to tales told by an idiot, full of tweets and fury, signifying nothing. Until today. Today Trump is President. Today he matters. And so T.H.R.E.A.T. Watch—Trump Human Rights Erosion and Termination Watch—begins in earnest.

Trump knows nothing about governing, but he knows how to wield personal and financial power. Driven by unbridled egomania and paranoia, he lives in a binary world; you're either for him, which makes you a "terrific person," or you're against him, which makes you an enemy. The way he treated people, organizations and businesses when he was a business man and the way he's written and talked about his rolling enemies list since his political career began are cause for alarm. Trump and his entourage could savage the institutions of a free press, free public speech and free assembly, and they could rob targeted groups of people living in this country of their basic rights, causing the country irreparable harm.

Sitting on one of Trump's shoulders whispering in his ear is a man who has aided and abetted the white supremacist movement and has a frightening global, nationalist vision of what the country should become. At Trump's other ear is a retired general and conspiracy theorist who was fired from his job in intelligence for his erratic behavior. As his megaphones, Trump has two Houdini-level verbal escape artists who lie, deflect, distract and threaten when they're confronted by an uncomfortable truth.

What could possibly go wrong?

Reading the confused comments under The Onion articles is one of my favorite past times. Please enjoy these randomly chosen reactions of reading satire literally as much as I have.

The people who were appalled by SeaWorld's new specialty:





































The people who had some serious concerns about an ice lawsuit:







































Perfecting the intricacies of the frappuccino is truly a tricky business.

The impending demise of K12 Inc., the for-profit online school corporation, has been an occasional source of schadenfreude in my posts. Online education as the sole source of schooling for K-12 students is a bad idea for all but a few people, and K12 Inc. needs millions of students, which requires a regular infusion of new students, to make a profit. The corporation's schools are failures by nearly every standard you can apply to them, and its stock prices have fallen steadily as a result. It had all the earmarks of a failing corporation, and I watched expectantly for it to crash and burn.

That changed November 9, the day after Trump's election. As you can see on the stock report at the top of the post, K12 Inc.'s stock price has soared since that fateful day. The Trump-era market is bullish on for-profit privatization in all its forms, including education.

Now, along comes Betsy DeVos as Trump's pick for Secretary of Education. DeVos is a champion of school choice—charters, vouchers and homeschooling. So long as it helps dismantle the school district model of public education (and where possible, promotes religious education), she's for it. In Michigan, DeVos' home state where she spends millions of dollars buying pro-school-choice politicians and setting up nonprofit advocacy groups, 80 percent of the charter schools are for profit, and accountability is kept to an absolute minimum. Even charter advocates complain that the Wild West approach to charters allows too many low quality Michigan schools to remain open.

But charter schools don't do well in sparsely populated areas where distances work against them. That's one reason DeVos and other school choicers support online education, where your "school" is always as close as your computer. Distance is no obstacle for distance learning, so online schooling opens up rural education markets.

We know DeVos held an "investment interest" in K12 Inc. before it went public, but we have no way of knowing if that continued. We may find out if she makes a full financial disclosure during her confirmation hearings.

Governor Ducey surprised me by proposing $114 million in new education funds for the upcoming state budget. That's $90 million more than I expected. According to Senator Steve Farley (D-Tucson), most of that comes from highway funds. Meaning, to paraphrase It's A Wonderful Life, every time a school bell rings, a roadway gets a pothole.

More than $100 million for education isn't nothing. It's not nearly enough (It moves us from 49th in per student spending all the way to . . . 49th), but it's a significant amount of money. Unlike last year when Ducey called money covering the increase in the number of students and inflation "new money"—that was a lie—this time, it's actually new money, above and beyond the required stay-even funding. We need to remember, however, this is only a proposed budget. The legislature passes the budget, not the governor. It's going to take some gubernatorial arm twisting to get the anti-"government schools" crowd to vote for all that new money. Don't be surprised if the final education budget comes in quite a bit lower. I hope no one is taking Ducey's money to the bank yet.

Let's take a look at how Ducey wants his proposed education funding to be spent.

His proposed teacher pay hike gets the most buzz, but it's only $13.6 million, compared to almost three times as much—$38 million—for "results-based funding." The pay raise comes to about a dollar a day, which is more of an insult to teachers than a pat on the back. It's wealthy, Cold Stone Stone Cold Doug Ducey saying, "Here's a crisp new dollar bill for each of you for the great work you're doing!" I hope he doesn't expect current teachers to go out of their way to thank him, or prospective new employees to flood school districts begging for one o' them high payin' teachin' jobs. Saying "I raised teacher salaries" makes for a great campaign pitch come reelection time, but a dollar a day doesn't put food on a teacher's table.

That $38 million for "results-based funding," on the other hand, is real money for those lucky schools that get a chunk of it. It's a third of Ducey's new money, and it will go to 10 percent of Arizona's schools. That comes to an average of more than $350 per student for each of the recipients, which is more than the $325 per student schools received from the Prop 123 money. All his other proposals are small ball stuff, but this one can have some big league consequences. It's enough for the schools to increase and improve their teaching supplies and technology and still have money left for significant teacher raises, all of which will make those schools more attractive to parents and teachers. And most of it will go to districts and charter schools educating the most privileged students. The main educational beneficiaries will be the current winners in the state's income inequality wars. To the victors go the "results-based funding" spoils.