I liked you a lot better when you sniveled at the onset, carped thru the meat of your article and finished up with couple of whines, Ha! My worst experience was on Houghton road, when a car passenger squirted at me with a water pistol loaded with urine........... takes all kinds!!
Agreed, ronko--thanks for the comment. Many of the side streets that are "safer" to ride on (because there's less traffic, moving relatively slowly) are not just annoying but dangerous, thanks to cracks and holes and bumps in the pavement that can literally throw a bicyclist to the ground.
Add to your list of fantasies improved pavement. While I agree with your list of big picture plans and ideas for the future of bicycling in Tucson on a more immediate and tangible level the streets/bike lanes, and basic surface of both in this town is bone rattling. Bad pavement can separate the dedicated cyclists from those less rabid. Those less rabid will simply drive or walk.
One more time, President Obama and his close advisers came up with the idea of the sequester and proposed it. The Republicans acquiesced to him. President Obama owns the sequester.
National Monuments were not closed during the 1995 government shutdown, and some National Parks including the Grand Canyon were allowed to remain open with private and non-federal funding. President Obama refused to accept outside funding to keep some of these areas open, including the war memorial in Normandy which is already privately funded.
President Obama even spent money to close and then place police guards at memorials that require no such supervision when the government is not shut down. He also spent money to close and guard roadside turnouts near national parks that are normally unmanned and require no supervision.
President Obama refused to allow government employees to work for no pay to maintain services for citizens.
Only 17% of the government was closed during the shutdown. President Obama had discretion to choose which areas of service to be disrupted. Some government employees were told to make life as difficult as possible for citizens.
In the 1995 shutdown President Clinton met with Speaker Gingrich every day. During the 2013 shutdown President Obama and Congressional Democrats refused to meet with Republicans, so why is all the blame placed upon Republicans?
ALL of the budget-cutting madness that pervades Washington these days derives from the sort of anti-government dogma that is wholeheartedly embraced by the Tea Party. The pathetic dynamic of Obama and squishy Democrats acquiescing to such nonsense does not change that fact. In that context, "Teaquester" is perfectly accurate.
Secondly, the simple fact is that the parks were forced to shut down by the failure of Congress to do its job and settle funding issues in a timely matter. What part of that do you not understand?
~Your friendly neighborhood correct-information writer
We get to go through this nonsense again in just a few months. Yippee.
Couldn't believe it when I saw one Senator complaining about having to wash his own towels to go to their special gym. If he had been anywhere near me I would have slapped him - HARD.
Too bad they handle their own paychecks. If I had any sayso they would be paid hourly since they only work part time anyway. AND they would have to go out and buy health care like the rest of us instead of getting what I sarcastically call "Magic Healthcare".
Thank goodness we had a few women there who were willing to ignore their male peers and get together and talk to straighten things out. Otherwise the Gov. may still be shut down.
I hope whoever reads this will vote for a different person at the next election. It's more than past time to do some serious House (and Senate) cleaning!
I thought after the shooting of Rep. Giffords all allusions to guns and violence as a part of political debate was verboten. Oh, that’s right, verboten for conservatives, but ok for rabid foaming at the mouth liberals.
“Congress celebrated two days later by barring the public from visiting millions of acres of our national parklands and confronting taxpayers with yellow crime scene tape…”
You need to go back to revisit 4th grade civics class. Congress is not involved in the administration of public lands. That would be fall under the purview of the Department of the Interior in the executive branch whose final authority and responsibility rests with the President of the United States.
I am guessing by using that term you are trying to place responsibility for the sequestration on The Tea Party. Nothing be further from the truth.
From Bob Woodward:
"... the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew (White House Office of Management Director Jack Lew) and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors — probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government." (parenthesis added)
"Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
The Republicans did the bidding of their President and went along with his proposal. Isn’t that what you want them to do?
Is your misrepresentation of the truth on purpose or because you are a low information writer.
Is that to say there's a dead spider in the kitchen?
I have never used face book, will never use it, if that is a requirement to post on any site they will never have to worry about me visiting and posting let alone reading their advertisements!;-)
One can find the face book thing a joke, you give up so much personal data opening one up to potential hackers, identity thieves and face book will deny any culpability when their records are compromised, but racism, hatred is rampant on the internet and print news papers especially in certain counties like Mohave County where if one is anti-Obama, anti-democrat nothing is off limits in content one can print whether it be lies or libel!
I think his point about anonymous comments is relevant. Here's the thing: I don't want my comments to be easily accessibly to anyone casually searching on my name such as a future employer. Not that I'm ashamed of anything I say, I just don't want to spend that much time thinking about comments to say, hm, how will this look in 10 years and is there a chance that it will tick someone off. I'd prefer that tying comments to me personally at least require finding my personal email and likely getting a warrant (or not if you're the NSA).
Who knows what facebook will do with them, but anything tied to facebook is tied to my name and personal account.
Thus I don't comment at ADS at all anymore (and the people rejoiced) and I've virtually stopped reading it (virtually, ha ha). Which is too bad since it's the only significant source of local news outside of the TV stations and if you ignored the trolls there were some good comments and some real information in them occasionally. It seems strange that a newspaper would be afraid of the statements of their readers, even if they disagreed with them.
But the ADS is not much more in depth or useful than the TV news anymore so maybe it's time for it to die.
If I'm understanding Serraglio's point, or at least one of them, Facebook is a sort of evil empire bent on monetizing (I hate this word) all communications flowing across and within its network. Yeah, that's why they exist or as the French would have it their raison d'etre. Serraglio's point is true but trivial. That the federal government, we've learned, has ready access to all communications on Facebook (and other social media site) is also true but deeply troubling; being an electronic massive data dump and NSA storage facility was not a primary goal of Facebook's founders.
So to many of us Facebook haters, the move by the Daily Star was a bridge too far, an inedible meal. You can be a liberal, libertarian or conservative and find adequate reason to opt out of the Facebook "community." You'd probably find common cause in your reasons including crude attempts at monetization, privacy concerns, or an overflow of unfiltered information from friends and relatives with too much time on their hands.
The ADS took the path of least resistance and the decision was probably made outside of Tucson; part of a corporate directive intended save money or generate additional revenues as the scrubbed up new commentaries somehow become interesting and palatable to a broad population of readers ...and go viral. Serraglio is correct, the new ADS online comments direction appears to be a massive failure with few bothering to bother and much of the same vitriol flowing (only much less of it). But that said, the Weekly comments section is also a pale shadow of the former ADS site even with its affording anonymity to posters. Maybe it's a trend, folks deciding not to contribute to the electronic noise.
Just another reason not to read the Arizona Daily Star. Wonder how the sponsors feel about so few people reading the ads with the comment section. The comments were also part of the entertainment! The Ariz Republic is also doing the same. few comments. Is it censorship of just plain stupidity? Hard to tell in Tucson. I wish the Star all the bad luck they deserve. We get the Sunday paper. Four pounds of ads and very little new. Except for the massive article on how college students are collecting and studying the trash of illegal aliens. Thank you Debbie Kornmiller! Keep your resume fresh the paper has little time left.
As said previously, the ADS lost control of commenting, and, I think, they gave up and out-sourced the job of moderating to Facebook.
I agree with the gist of this opinion piece: it is not so much about the name a commenter uses as it is about the owner of the website's willingness to moderate comments.
Kudos to the Tucson Weekly for its willingness to moderate comments to its articles!
Simple solution, Have a Facebook acct under an alias.
Works for me when I want to remind people how much power racism and ignorance hold over Arizonans.
Welcome to the new Mississippi.
Great article, Randy. I participated in the Star's comment section until they switched to Facebook. I valued a forum that allowed one to speak freely without "sharing" the thoughts with all the family members and others on Facebook. Some ideas and opinions are best not said to some family members and friends. Anonymity is a form of privacy that enables free expression that social circles tend to inhibit to keep the peace. Anonymous forums are not as peaceful, but you hear how and what people really, really think. The Star blew it!
Like Wise-Guy I was banished from the ADS comments for using a forbidden word. In my case the word was "Teabagger". I wasn't aware of the sexual connotation of the word (really!) and I sent an e-mail to John Bolton trying to explain. He told me he'd have to talk with his associates to see if I could be forgiven.
I cancelled my subscription to the ADS forthwith, and I don't ever plan to return, although I'm frequently receiving solicitations to "come back". I wonder how John Bolton developed such a virginal sense of propriety, certainly it could not have come from being a moderator on the old ADS comments.
ChetDude refers to "right wing trolls" on ADS boards. Why stop with right-wing? To be fair, left-wing serial posters like Benjamin Long and Autumn, Malcolm (Tripod) did their share of trolling.
I was both a participant and a lurker on the old ADS comment site. I enjoyed anonymous posting as I put in my comments from work computer and needed privacy. I enjoyed reading the vigorous exchanges on political topics about which I wasn't particularly opinionated or knowledgeable (Benghazi, Fast&Furious, Obamacare, immigration, etc.) and putting my two cents worth on a few topics I do know well. I learned a lot about the constitutional and election issues from posters like Langer and Harry Red Dog, gun rights/gun control issues from Wayne B. (Rain) and Harperman, enviro comments from folks like Skinnyman, SilverTones, Jerrod Sandhill, and Horquilla, and the super clever posts by Rat T. The information provided by the posters supplemented the many times thin or biased story lines written by ADS. Heck half the time, the fellow posters provided the links we needed to do something about what we learned or to fuller stories in other papers. I miss the rapid-fire conversations. The conversations now on the threads are slow, insipid, and boring, but hey, the folks all seem to agree with each other! Dissenters and provacateurs on the left, middle, and right have split.
Randy, having read your comments in the Arizona Daily Star and seeing you speak before the public on many occasions, I never thought that I would ever agree with you on anything. But in this case, I think you are correct. The Arizona Daily Star lost control of the forums it used to allow citizens like you and me to comment on important issues in our community.
However, my comments were seldom removed by the Arizona Daily Star's censors because they were made in a courteous and respectful manner. However, many of the other individuals in these forums would repeatedly report me, for no other reason than to censor my comments. As you may know, this is one of the ways the system was abused.
Oh well, the good old days of discussing Rosemont Copper in the Arizona Daily Star are gone. With Rosemont Copper nearing the successful completion of the permitting process and commencing construction at the site in the near future, there would not be very many opportunities to continue these discussions anyway.
Chris J. Horquilla
Tucson Weekly |
3280 E. Hemisphere Loop, Suite 180, Tucson AZ 85706 |
(520) 294-1200 |
Powered by Foundation