I guess Mr. Walker missed the debt/deficit “pseudo-crisis” and the economic collapse caused by dozens of un-funded wars and the posting of American Legions of Occupation all over the world.
He also seems to have missed the facts of Peak Oil and Global Climate Destabilization caused by overuse of fossil fuels. The Pentagon is the NUMBER ONE consumer of U.S. petroleum.
It also seems to have escaped his notice that the F35s he’s defending are overpriced boondoggles designed to fight the F16s that the U.S. has supplied to others while lining the pockets of Lockheed, etc. Or that the brilliant minds of the Military-Industrial Complex will be selling these planes below cost (using U.S. taxpayer supplied “foreign aid” dollars) to other countries and then point and say, “See, they have them too, we must make the next-next generation fighter to defend ourselves!” continuing the Empire’s Death Spiral.
When I hear military jets overhead (and DO, WAY TOO OFTEN), I hear the dying blasts of the end of the Age of Cheap Fossil Fuels coupled with the financial and moral bankrupting of our society by the Permanent War Economy™ and its proponents in the Military-Industrial-Governmental Complex.
Charles Walker might well be "from a small town near Fresno", but it's too bad he didn't take time to study enough military aviation history to know that Tucson has already suffered through a military jet crash thanks to DM's presence. An A-7 Corsair II piloted by Capt. Fredrick Ashler crashed southeast of the U of A on October 26th, 1978 (Google it and see). Since this is indeed a single engine fighter (which Mr. Walker claims "Never has one of those crashed in a populated area"), one can gauge the overall validity of his letter.
I say let's ask the Iraqis, Afghanis, Libyans, Bosnians, Panamanians, Yemenis and Vietnamese if the scream of our fighter jets makes them feel free. In fact, if the howl of an American jet engine liberates the listener, one must be compelled to ask why it isn't standard issue with our UAV Predator drones as killing them silently doesn't seem to be working. Oh wait, it's the sound of "freedom being defended"...what freedom would that be, Mr. Walker? The freedom to subjugate oneself under corporate rule? Or the freedom to kill whoever threatens those corporations' status quo? That's what the scream of our jets represents to the nations mentioned above. As well as a lot of the people they fly over in this nation, no matter their proximity to ammo dumps or air bases.
What an asinine poem. Just another U. of A. liberal arts doctorate flipping burgers for a living.
For pete's sake, the planes have to go somewhere...get off of DM's back. I'm no hawk, but I think any complaint about training there is absurd.
Charles Walker, I guess you're right - an air force training flight could NEVER crash near the UofA. What? When? Well, then NEVER MIND.
We want Davis-Monthan to stay and not be on the BRAC chopping block, but they need to think about ways to adapt to their urban environment and location near TIA. Encroachment will be the big issue at the next BRAC go-around.
Excellent letter from James Collins. The headline was a bit inflammatory.
James, I'm SO sorry - that last comment was made in a fit of honesty. Let me try again. It's about protecting our freedom. No, wait, it's about supporting our troops. No, Weapons of Mass Destruction. Oh, I'm sorry, it's about bringing democracy to the Middle East.
Now I'm ALL confused.
James Collins - it is true that quality of life is important. What you don't realize is, that the quality of YOUR life is of no concern, while the quality of MY life is all-important. By having these flyboys ruining your life, I can afford to buy a home high in the foothills, out of the flight path, danger, and noise. So, quit whining and get with the program.
Now do you understand? It's all about quality of life.
"Many critics of reducing taxes claim that the Reagan tax cuts drained the U.S. Treasury. The reality is that federal revenues increased significantly between 1980 and 1990"
"Contrary to popular myth, while inflation-adjusted defense spending increased by 50 percent between 1980 and 1989, it was curtailed when the Cold War ended and fell by 15 percent between 1989 and 1993. However, means-tested entitlements, which do not include Social Security or Medicare, rose by over 102 percent between 1980 and 1993, and they have continued climbing ever since"
"This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II."
"The American economy grew by about one-third in real inflation-adjusted terms."
"From 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 3.6 percent per year. From 1973 to 1982, it averaged only 1.6 percent. The Reagan economic boom restored the more usual growth rate as the economy averaged 3.5 percent in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1990"
"Reagonomics and the 'trickle down theory' did not work."
Yes, it was solely responsible for tearing down the economic legacy of Carter. LOL!
commieLOVER: Dems have learned a big lesson, just like David Stockman has stated publicly, Reagonomics and the 'trickle down theory' did not work.
"Dems Have Ideas About Being Business-Friendly"
The "Dems" should learn something about economics rather than parroting marxist propaganda.
Basic Economics 4th Ed: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy
It is indeed against the law to enter this country illegally, i.e. without the permission of its government. There are two levels of law in the legal system, civil and criminal. The offense of illegal entry falls into the civil category, making it the legal equivalent of a traffic ticket. Which really doesn't sound like all that much of a crime to get worked up about.
If someone committing this level of malfeasance is really considered a threat, then all drivers who've received a ticket should henceforth be referred to as "illegal drivers". Just a thought...
I'm glad Leo Banks writes for Tucson Weekly. I'm also glad Kate Van Roekel does not.
Nothing in Kate's critique of Leo Banks in any way disputes what he has reported. She accuses him of writing misleading, fearmongering pieces, but does not provide one ounce of proof anything that contradicts his reports. Instead she writes a letter using incredibly hateful language against someone with whom she disagrees.
Leo Banks has been a respected journalist in Tucson for more than 30 years. He gets these stories because the people living on the border (who are of many different ethnicities) trust him to cover the story completely. Before you start hurling stones at the man, let me ask that you provide one iota of proof beyond some semantic disagreements.
You are all partly right, using the term "illegal" does not make you a racist. But continuing to put people in jail for an unauthorized entry might. Continuing to use biased language and making inflammatory statements against one race (or another) might. Because what racism is, is when one race conspires to to keep another from having the rights and privileges that they (you) enjoy. Like freedom to migrate.
And Leo is a good writer. Good enough to know when he is writing a biased, inflammatory piece and so he should be good enough to admit why he writes them with that slant.
I'm going to have to agree with Kate on this one.
i am puzzled that people have a hard time with the word illegals. I gues if one was being completely grammatically correct it would be better to call them illegal entrents, illegal tresspassers, illegal law breakers, but in the interest of reaching a common reference that everyone can understand, illegals seems to work fine. This is the same problem as you cant call people stupid, or fat, or dumb because its not PC, but it certainly hits the nail on the head as a descritive term. Kate, get a life.
People who enter this country illegally are illegals. It is a crime to enter this country illegally, first offense is a misdemeanor, second and subsequent offenses are a felony. People who enter this country illegally are not migrants or immigrants, they are illegal entrants, and they are also criminals.
Leo Banks is a fine writer. Very professional. There is nothing racist about him calling an illegal an illegal. Anyone in this country illegally is an illegal, a law breaker.
How hard is that to understand?
Would Kate prefer the term "illegal alien?"
Leo's writing is colorful, descriptive and never boring.
And to call Afghan clothing "man jammies" is not an insult.
I wear jammies in the winter and it doesn't make me a laughable caricature.
Kate, you are way uptight, you would enjoy life more if you could try to loosen up a bit. You sound like a caricature of a preachy old maid school marm.
Tucson Weekly |
7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation