This gets a little English-teacher, but it's important. As a general rule, you want to avoid the passive voice when you're writing. Not, "The ball was hit into center field," but "Jim Smith hit the ball into center field." The ball didn't get there by itself. Usually, the passive voice is bad writing.

But the passive voice is a favorite with politicians and others in the limelight when they screw up. When you're caught, always say, "Mistakes were made" rather than copping to it yourself. The passive voice says no one is to blame. Somehow, that mistake just fell from the heavens like summer rain.

So, to the story at hand. A group of Sigma Alpha Epsilon frat boys at University of Oklahoma were joyously singing a song on the bus which said, in essence, it's better to lynch an African American than to let him join the fraternity ("There will never be a ni**** in SAE. You can hang him from a tree, but he'll never sign with me"). Two of them were expelled, and one of them, Parker Rice, issued an apology. But that doesn't end the problem, even if more of the students apologize or are expelled. This isn't simply about Rice or the other frat boys on the bus. It's about the wider culture that accepts underlying racism as a part of our lives, then when it's exposed, condemns the specific actors and moves on without addressing the larger problem that runs like a cancer through our society.

Listen to the passive voice in one part of Rice's apology: "Yes, the song was taught to us." Who taught it to them? Rice didn't say, nor did he say whether the song is sung regularly at the University of Oklahoma chapter, whether it's sung by other chapters, whether it's one of a number of racist songs, chants, jokes and slogans which are part of the fraternity's culture—and whether, as some African American students at the university have said, this is part of the pervasive racist culture they are forced to deal with daily. Ignore those questions and you end up clucking your tongue at the bad behavior of a few drunken frat boys and ignoring the larger issue.

The high stakes testing opt out bill, HB2246, sponsored by John (Chris) Ackerley (R, LD-2), passed the House 35 to 24 and is moving onto the Senate. It's a Republican bill supported by Republicans, but actually, the idea of opting out of high stakes tests has national bipartisan support. Case in point: The Network for Public Education (NPE), a group founded by progressive education historian and activist Diane Ravitch and others.

According to Tucsonan Robin Hiller, Executive Director of NPE, "We know these tests aren't working for kids, teachers or schools. We believe parents should have the right to opt their children out of the tests with no repercussions to the student or the school."

Here is the NPE statement.

Network for Public Education Supports Those Who Opt Out

The Network for Public Education stands in full support of parents, students and educators who choose to teach and learn about the reality of high stakes tests, opt out of high stakes tests, speak out against high stakes tests and who refuse to give those tests to students.

We take this stand because:

• Right now, in communities from the highest need to the most affluent, students, parents and educators are being punished for the courageous act of informing others about available options to opt out of high stakes tests and acting upon those options. These reprisals, often for merely learning and teaching about students’ rights, violate basic human rights and common decency.

• There is no evidence that these tests contribute to the quality of education, or help close the “achievement gap.” Since NCLB, these tests have hindered, not helped, school improvement efforts. The scores of US students in the international PISA tests have remained flat for the dozen years of high stakes testing.

• These tests, particularly those associated with the Common Core, have become intrusive in our schools, consuming excessive time and resources. These are not the kind of tests that we took when we were children. Students in grades three to eight must spend ten or more hours on testing, and enter their answers on computer keyboards. Since teachers will not see their scores for months they have no diagnostic value. They have resulted in narrow instruction and curriculum that focuses on test preparation.

• The Common Core tests, such as PARCC, SBAC and others Pearson has developed to measure the Common Core standards, have been designed to yield widespread failure for students, and thus are an inaccurate reflection of what our students are capable of doing.

• Inequities in education are a real and devastating reality in our education system. High stakes tests exacerbate this inequity with their negative, disparate impact on students of color, students in poverty, English language learners, and students with disabilities.

You can make errors of commission where you say something that isn't true, and errors of omission where you leave out vital information. The Star news team is guilty of a serious error of omission in its coverage of the Justice Department's Ferguson Report. The paper's only article about Ferguson Thursday discussed the Feds' decision not to charge Darren Wilson for killing Michael Brown, with no coverage of the scathing report detailing the grossly unfair treatment of Ferguson's minority community by the police department and justice system.

Thursday, the Star ran a long, detailed article, Feds: Evidence backs Ferguson officer's account in shooting. It was all about the evidence that resulted in the Justice Department not charging former officer Darren Wilson with a civil rights violation. It's important to note, that doesn't mean the Feds said Wilson was justified in killing Brown. It means the evidence didn't clear the very high bar the Feds have to jump over to show that Wilson intended to violate Brown's civil rights. Presented by itself, the article amounts to a shout-out to all those who think Wilson was justified in shooting Brown and were shocked and angered by what they believe was as an overreaction by the Ferguson community and other cities where demonstrators protested the killing.

Blacks in Ferguson accounted for 85 percent of traffic stops, 90 percent of tickets and 93 percent of arrests over a two-year period studied by investigators. In cases like jaywalking, which often hinge on police discretion, blacks accounted for 95 percent of those charged. A black motorist in Ferguson was twice as likely to be searched, according to the report, even though searches of whites turned up drugs and other contraband more often.

The Justice Department’s analysis found that these disparities could not be explained even when correcting for crime rates and demographics. “These disparities occur, at least in part, because Ferguson law enforcement practices are directly shaped and perpetuated by racial bias,” the Justice Department concluded.

The Star didn't tell that part of the story.

The tragic truth is, this kind of thing is a regular part of law enforcement around the country, and it can only be dealt with if it's made visible—which is the responsibility of local papers like the Star. It would be nice if people like Sheriff Arpaio were the rare exception, but they aren't. People like "Arizona's Sheriff" occupy too many leadership positions in too many police departments, and the officers serving under them follow the orders they're given, sometimes with racist gusto, sometimes simply because they're following orders. The problem can extend to local and state leadership and the judicial system as well. Sometimes the arrest-and-incarceration epidemic is as much a result of our out-of-control War on Drugs and zero tolerance policies as it is the specific intent of the people involved. But no matter the reason, the result is minority communities where the arrest and incarceration rates are far higher than they should be compared to similar rates of criminal behavior in other communities.

Maybe I should cut the Star some slack because it ran a Chicago Tribune editorial today dealing with the rest of the report, but I won't. It's a day late—Friday, while the Wilson/Brown story ran Thursday—and data short—far fewer words than the Thursday article, and less detailed since it's an opinion piece. Besides, the news department of the Star can't hide behind an piece chosen for inclusion by the editorial staff. There's a wall of separation between the two departments. While the editorial staff did a reasonable job of covering the entire report, the news department failed utterly.

Full disclosure. I'm so enraged by the budget Ducey and his cronies are trying to strong-arm through the legislature, hoping they can pass it before too many Republicans defect, I don't have the composure to write a careful, fact-laden post about the budget. The proposed budget is awful. It's immoral. It works against the best interests of our children and our state. If you want details, sorry, you'll have to go elsewhere.

If you're also outraged, live in Pima County and want to do something, register your complaint by calling or emailing Governor Ducey. Most likely if you're from around here, your legislators are as outraged as you are, so calling or emailing them won't do much good. The phone number is (602) 542-4331. Here's the page where you email his office.  A few words will suffice, but if you'd like help framing your message, go to the Call to Action page on the website of the newly formed group, Arizona Stands UP. You'll find a short, basic script you can either follow or use as a starting point. (Another full disclosure: I'm working with Arizona Stands UP). Helpful hint for the phone shy: if you want to call but don't want to talk directly with someone, call after hours and leave a voice message.

If you live in Pinal County or other Republican-heavy areas around the state, you can contact your legislators and urge them to vote against the budget.

Arizona's high stakes testing opt out bill, HB2246, made it through two committees. Republicans in the committees voted for it while Democrats either voted No or were absent during the vote. I understand the Democrats' concern, since killing Common Core is a cause célèbre for the far right, and one of their strategies is to throw a monkey wrench in the works by attacking the tests. But testing and Common Core aren't the same thing. The merits of the Common Core are worth debating. Lots of teachers using the Common Core standards like them, including people whose opinions I respect, while others are less happy with what they've seen. But the yearly high stakes tests, which have been around since No Child Left Behind was signed into law in 2002, are a destructive force in our children's educations, more destructive than any good that might come from the new standards. Allowing parents to express their concerns about the tests by opting out is an important first step toward replacing the yearly tests with something that will help, not harm our children and our educational system.

The NY Times has an interesting article in its Business section discussing a recent paper that concludes, a big, booming financial/banking sector results in a drop in national productivity. When times are good and money is flowing in, the authors contend, banks prefer to lend to collateral-rich areas like real estate and construction.

But these industries are also among the least productive, and that leaves fewer dollars for more promising research-and-development start-ups that may have only intangibles, such as knowledge and ideas, to offer a banker as collateral. Even though such start-ups have far more potential than projects backed by tangible collateral, they don’t attract the financing they need.

I'd never thought of that aspect of the negative effects of Big Finance, but I've long thought, from an educational standpoint, that the big money in finance-based professions creates a societal brain drain, luring some of our top minds away from productive businesses that thrive on brilliance and innovation.

People love to moan about how our higher education system isn't turning out the great, innovative minds we need to compete and thrive in the global market. I agree, it would be to the country's advantage to turn out more first rate mathematicians, scientists, computer engineers and the like. Is the problem that our colleges and universities are doing a lousy job educating our young adults? Is it because American kids today are so spoiled and lazy, they're not willing to put the necessary effort into their educations? Both of those are possible, but here's a third possibility I find more compelling. So many students with dollar signs in their eyes are choosing to be business majors, it's robbing other fields of much-needed talent.

It's worth sitting up and taking notice when a poll says almost two-thirds of Arizonans support a tax increase—especially when 50 percent of Republicans are on board.

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, according to a new poll.

Why are respondents willing to dig into their own pockets to support our children's educations?

Respondents overwhelmingly chose K-12 education as their top priority, and 50 percent said Arizona high school graduates are not as prepared as students in other states. Almost three-quarters of those polled said Arizona spends fewer tax dollars on K-12 education than other states, and almost 80 percent said the state doesn't spend enough.

Those are amazing numbers. Even if the poll is a bit skewed and overstates the pro-education sentiment by 10 percent, it's still an impressive show of support for education, a sign that Arizonans understand that we need to spend more money on schools.

So. Democrats. Have you ever seen numbers so strongly in your favor when it comes to education and taxation here in Arizona? I haven't. Now is the time to throw off your natural reticence—I'll refrain from calling it cowardice, though I'm tempted to—and Man Up! Woman Up! Stand Up! Say it loud. We need more funds to educate our children, and we can only get those funds if we increase taxes.

Everyone who's looked at the numbers knows it's impossible for Arizona to have a balanced budget while supporting education and other necessary services adequately if we don't put more cash in the state coffers. And really, as sensible as it would be to cut back on all those tax breaks legislators have lavished on businesses, and as sensible as it would be to bag the current round of business tax cuts, that won't bring in all the required revenue. We need to raise taxes.

As generous as the people who took the poll said they were willing to be, they really don't have to kick in an extra $200. Those who have benefited most over the past 40 years from our growing income inequality should be paying their fair share, meaning their state income tax rates need to go up. They can afford a significant tax hike, which will hurt their pride more than their pocketbooks, far more easily than the average taxpayer can afford $200. Our current dependence on sales tax puts too great a burden on bottom 50 percent of wage earners. The only fair thing to do is raise the tax rates at the top income levels.

Ten Fifty-Five's collaboration saison with Agustin Kitchen is now at Tap & Bottle.

A photo posted by Tucson Weekly (@tucsonweekly) on Feb 20, 2015 at 12:09pm PST

So, when I was getting started this job, Mari had just taken over as editor. She and I sat down and talked about all of the things we want to do on the Internet and, man, I think you'll like what we're working on. But more on that another day.

Mari also mentioned a long lost Instagram account which the Weekly apparently started and abandoned years ago. We're using the account to let you know what's going on around town, give you a preview of the stories we're working on and (of course) show you when we are presented with something so delicious.

We're just getting started up again. I hope you'll join us over at @tucsonweekly.

National adjunct walkout day at the University of Arizona.

A photo posted by Tucson Weekly (@tucsonweekly) on Feb 25, 2015 at 11:22am PST

Bandito Blanco at 5 Points Market.

A photo posted by Tucson Weekly (@tucsonweekly) on Feb 12, 2015 at 10:31am PST

The times have indeed a-changed. From Peanuts, 1971:


To the current issue of the AARP Magazine:


As Pete Townshend might say, I'm just talkin' 'bout my [aging] generation.

NY Times columnist Paul Krugman is an economist and a college prof, so he's very qualified to talk about the intersection of education, economics and the job market. He gets it right in today's column. His basic thesis: today's weak job market and low wages aren't the fault of a broken education system.

Just to be clear: I’m in favor of better education. Education is a friend of mine. And it should be available and affordable for all. But what I keep seeing is people insisting that educational failings are at the root of still-weak job creation, stagnating wages and rising inequality. This sounds serious and thoughtful. But it’s actually a view very much at odds with the evidence, not to mention a way to hide from the real, unavoidably partisan debate.

As an educator, I'm expected to proclaim, "Education is the answer." Just give people excellent schools, I'm supposed to say—from quality kindergartens through a strong undergraduate degree and throw in the possibility of grad school—and people's vocational problems will take care of themselves. Good paying jobs will always be there for the well schooled. But I won't say it, because it ain't so. A good education is  necessary, almost essential, to land most good paying, personally rewarding jobs, but it's not sufficient. Wages have stagnated for the highly educated as well as the under educated, and there simply aren't enough jobs paying solid middle class salaries out there for everyone to have a nice, tasty piece of the economic pie. These problems are in the marketplace, not the schools.

Is there a skills gap, too few educated people to fill open jobs? No, says Krugman.

[T]here’s no evidence that a skills gap is holding back employment. After all, if businesses were desperate for workers with certain skills, they would presumably be offering premium wages to attract such workers. So where are these fortunate professions? You can find some examples here and there. Interestingly, some of the biggest recent wage gains are for skilled manual labor—sewing machine operators, boilermakers—as some manufacturing production moves back to America. But the notion that highly skilled workers are generally in demand is just false.