Trolls are a lot nastier than the comments you have featured. The comments ring true. Their entitled to their opinion. Reading Chow I wonder how any one or two people can eat that amount of food. The meals they describe eating could feed a herd of giraffes.
TXJesse: So, you don't actually read Chow, right? Because what you're saying is just false.
Just wanted to resolve that bit of misinformation in case you want to have an actual conversation about our food coverage.
All of the above comments you call trollish are true. Dining out in Tucson is dreary.
You want people to lie?
Tucson Weekly is getting trollish in my opinion and is becoming less and less interesting.
So drool over the advertisers who sell tacos, and assorted unhealthy, greasy Mexican food, hamburgers and hot dogs, canned Asian food, and mystery meat barbeque. That is about all you have to write about in Chow.
Tucson is a wasteland for dining, but if you just want to chow down and pork up, there are plenty of greasy spoons and joints around.
Yes, I agree with you for removing the movie times from your pages... it was only a minor public service to your readers and who needs those pesky little things in our lives that make life easier... it's just not the corporate way... and you are a corporation after all, right... As far as the editors reasoning that everyone has a data plan on their smart phone, or you can go on the internet...perhaps on your side of town. I must start carrying my laptop with me rather than the Tucson Weekly whenever I'm traveling around town and try to find a hot-spot that I can link up to... actually I tried that last night and after 15 minutes of trying to get connected I said screw it. I know, I know... it's just the movie times, no big deal, right?
I don't care about the movie times because I have a smart phone and a computer, but not everybody does.
"These letters are presented unedited in their original format."
Of coarse they are.
Michael, I read this after posting comments on Danehy's column and Gibson's editor notes. You might check them out!
karma can be yours, or mine. but it aint theirs, them, or they.
I agree 100 percent with Christina Farnsworth and Matt Peters. The tedious self-checkout process is a pain for those of us who bring our own bags or tend to buy things without easily scanned barcodes (i.e., produce!), and on top of all of that it has surely aided in the firing (or lack of hiring) of cashiers. Especially when I'm buying produce, a skilled cashier can still save a ton of time whereas I have to look up all the product codes that they have committed to memory. And don't get me started on the ultra-sensitive bagging stations.
If all of us in Arizona are stereotyped by our finger-shakin' governor and the toughest? sheriff in America, then SaddleBrooke is going to have to suffer the consequences for electing Al Melvin. Sorry...
So, are you guys just not getting letters any longer? I guess I better start using the Postal System or that will go away too.
Stephen, Hope you saw John Mayall at the Fox in Oct, this yr. He was awesome at age 79.
Sorry I missed Fogerty he always put on a great show.
Truth, how refreshing. Mr. koppinger voiced the truth about Lincoln, who we have all been brain washed into believing the Civil War was all about freeing the slaves. It's a shame our education system is so one sided and down right filled with half truths and yes even lies.
Our system needs to change, and this was a step in that direction which most Americans were unwilling to take by voting against Prop 121.
When a guy with an (R) by his name promises not to politicize his office, it is a good idea to check and see what the other local Rs have done. Arpaio, Babeau and Dever all come to mind. All used their offices to pursue personal and/or Republican agendas. And except for Dever, they still do. I think that is a reasonable look. By their friends you will know them.
Hope you don’t mind me taking a moment of your time to share a thought or two I have had regarding the upcoming elections that are now right around the corner. Don’t worry, where I do have an opinion on why I’m choosing who I’m going to vote for, I’m not going to try and convince you as to why I think I’m right or who it is you should vote for because oddly enough, that is not what this is about. Not directly anyway.
I know, I know… at this stage of the political season we’re all about sick of the whole process, especially the ads that seem to dominate the commercials. By the way, if you the candidate are the one speaking in the commercial there’s no reason to assume we’re all dumb shits by having to announce that you endorse the commercial. As expensive as on-air time is, that little useless tidbit probably costs something like ten grand. If there is some kind of law stating you have to say it then maybe that should be the first thing you should fix if you should happen to win!
As I watch the people who I’ve never even met try and get my vote I notice that there are a certain percentage of these people running on the platform of what they are going to do for me. What’s even more curious is the fact that there is even a bigger percentage of voters looking for the candidate who offers the most. This doesn’t mean I don’t want us to be a compassionate nation who doesn’t help those who are in need or unable to help themselves for one reason or another but sometimes I look back and think about my grandfather, ( who happened to be one of the ORIGINAL Screaming Eagles so a special shout out to all the Airborne in respects to him ), that fought in the Second World War and was among those willing to give his life to sustain the freedom to be able to live that very same life however he deemed fit if he managed to live through it.
I look at my life and at the lives at those around me now and I can’t help but ask myself if we’re all doing everything we can to live up to the promise and premise of what that freedom really means and how hard fought it was to obtain. We are the core of America and I wonder that if instead of looking up to the MittBamas and wonder what it is that either of them can do to help us along life’s journey even if it’s just get out of our way and just let us live it, that maybe we can look towards ourselves a little more and ask that very same question. Maybe, just maybe we can ALL take a step back and take a good look at our lives and decide if we’re surpassing the standards and remain committed to that freedom that so many gave their lives so we are able to be given a fair shot at obtaining a happy life, or if we’re just sensitized cowards hiding behind a hollow idea that’s long gone in order to cater to our selfish lives.
I am really disappointed by the TEA's stance in the letter above. The Teachers' Union really thinks it is in the best interest of its membership to suggest to them that they throw away their third vote? Instead of this suggestion, I agree wholeheartedly with one of their chosen candidates--who has opened two debates by stressing to the crowd that there are THREE positions open, and the task ahead of us is to vote for THREE people who can work together. To either single shot (ask all people to vote for just one favored candidate) or vote for only two is to dilute the democratic values that we are teaching our kids about in school. Its not supposed to be about a deep calculation of viability and endorsements, its supposed to be about anyone, ANYone, being able to run for political office. By suggesting that the third vote be thrown out or wasted, the TEA is trying to confine the race to the choices of its leadership. Beyond the fact that it is 180' from what I understood the union's position to be it is far from our--or just my?-- ideal of inclusive, not exclusionary democratic action.
What are we saying about equal democratic access when we suggest that people throw away votes? Perhaps I am naive, idealistic or just plain independent, but I don't think thats good modeling coming from the TEA. I sure hope the membership is more democratic than the leadership is. And before I too am called to task for "attacking the very institution that ....asked for endorsements from", let me make it clear that I, as a candidate for TUSD this time around, also asked for an endorsement. I do support their professed values, but not this one. This approach allows no room for independent voices, despite the fact that some of our finest politicians once were independent voices themselves.
As I have campaigned, people have asked me for suggestions on who to vote for. Occasionally they state that they will vote for only me. I have been consistent in my opposition to this gaming of the system-I think it got our Board into the situation that we are in today. There are way too many important things facing TUSD and the kids, families and teachers involved for us to be excluding candidates and ideas. Please use all three of your votes and put in three people who will move this Board forward.
caveat emptor in the Manchurian Canadate type world the retreaters find themselves is not useful advice.
he was caught screwing a student,claimed it wasn't really sex because she was the reincarnation of Vavindi Yogini (sp) He then pushed his students to treat her like a goddess.They ate her toe nails as offerings and danced with weapons after spilling blood..how fucked up is that?
Whatever you said doesn't negate the fact that Michael Roach has been claiming for years to be part of the Gelugpa lineage of Tibetan Buddhism of which the Dalai Lama has been the spiritual leader and that he lied about being legally married to Ms. McNally, among other things. By refusing to shed his maroon and gold robes, letting his hair grow long, wearing jewelry, and not being celibate he was impersonating someone he was not. Whether or not someone claims to be a Buddhist monk or a police officer, that sort of thing is usually frowned upon, especially when people are persuaded to give money to and/or perform services for the impersonator.
I have no idea who "Buddhist in Tucson" is or might be but there is no dogma in Buddhism that covers all or even most Buddhists. Buddhism is essentially egalitarian in nature and is not a universally organized religion. There is absolutely no restriction as to whether or not a Buddhist may be married. A monk usually adopts the "precepts" which state that he (or nowadays she) may not engage in "sexual misconduct" (2nd Paramita.) Tibetan lamas and tulkus and even rinpoches, for example, may be married if they so desire and lose none of their supposed authority.
No one determines who is or who is not a Buddhist. There is no pope or Sanhedrin. Not even the Dalai Lama is necessarily recognized as a spiritual leader by followers of non-Tibetan Buddhist congregations and is certainly not infallible. To many, such as myself, he is but a very nice man with loads of wisdom.
As someone who has studied Buddhism for going on sixty years or so and who has occasionally practiced elements of it, I find the tut-tutting an amusing misconception of the nature and practice of Buddhism but then the use of concepts is one of the troubling issues in Buddhist practice and thought.
Tucson Weekly |
3280 E. Hemisphere Loop, Suite 180, Tucson AZ 85706 |
P.O. Box 27087, Tucson AZ 85726-7087 |
(520) 294-1200 |
Powered by Foundation