"Even before President-Elect Donald Trump disgracefully laid into civil-rights hero and Congressman John Lewis after Lewis said Trump was not a legitimate president"
Think through those actions from start to finish. Are you really that blindly partisan and hateful?
You forgot that the civil rights hero also lied. He has a history of doing this. He would not attend Bush 2000 Inauguration. So now he has done it again. Then he tells us that he believes in forgiveness. But fails to forgive.
Major Owens is a supporter.
What won't this man to say?
I just left another thread where we were lectured that Trump changed his views and that made him illegitimate. Which is it?
TW-the height of cynicism.
Ducey employs smoke and mirrors. Don't believe a bit of it -- he hasn't changed his spots.
I didn't realize that the "city's Small Business Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission" bestowed law degrees.
"This proposed rule change would make it easier to implement this plan by allowing the Congress to give away every single piece of property we own, for free, and pretend we have lost nothing of any value. Not only is this fiscally irresponsible, but it is also a flagrant attack on places and resources valued and beloved by the American people."
This has become to be recognized as the liberal/progressive mantra. Much like "police brutality" that is yelled after every suspicious stop. Of suspicious activities.
His concern is that the value (to the federal government) has been lost.
You sir have put us $20T in debt. What would you know about value? You don't value all the funds already confiscated from hard working citizens.
I understand that Highwire bar is aligned with the Grijalva clan whose dynasty over Tucson-area public offices is threatened by newcomers such as Sedgwick. I've met and discussed some TUSD issues with Ms. Sedgwick and come away with the impression that she's very sincere about solving the many problems plaguing the district.
As for commentators on this board; either you are cronies of the Grijalvas, employees of Highwire, or are at the level of maturity to dismiss the new board member who's been in office for three days based upon the gossip of some bartenders.
Oh, and the beer. I used to manage bars. If the $265 Delirium Noel keg was even as small as a quarter barrel (pony) keg. That's still about 60 full-pint pours coming in at about $4.42 per pour. The ideal pour cost for a draft beer is about 9-12 percent, however, with ultra-premium beers it is simply not realistic to pull in a 90% profit from each pour.
If the price was listed as $12, there's an expectation that it be a full 16 oz pour. Had Highwire served it that way, they would've managed only a measly 64% profit on each pour. However, they'd have sold an impression of their establishment that their customers can expect to not be completely gouged for a beer that is a seasonal treat. If their attitude is to fight with their clientele and try to embarrass their customers to the local media, then they don't deserve to stay in business.
Seems some like to steal the " Carpet Baggers" I only comment in the MMJ column not anything else. I didn't make the first comment
What kind of a disclaimer / "descriptive header" would cover the kind of "reporting" provided here?
"Warning: This is a gossip column where no attempt is being made to cover the behavior of local elected officials in a fair and valid way, or to provide information on local governance that is constructive and useful to citizens / the electorate in Tucson"?
TUSD is a public school district serving close to 50,000 students. It is one of the largest employers in the region and it budgeted funds for FY2017 between $300 and $400 million. For the past four years it has, in the opinions of many, suffered from bad management and chronically poor decisions in the application of public funds, to the detriment of its students, its employees, and the broader community.
The November 2016 election added a new Board member (Sedgwick) and broke up the three person board majority that made many controversial decisions 2012-2016, which included the decision to approve a compensation contract that awards the district's Superintendent for choosing not to take 40 paid vacation days every year at the rate of $1,000 per day. (That's right: he banks more than most teachers make in annual salary for choosing not to take 40 vacation days per year. His most recent annual compensation when all the various perks, expense accounts, and benefits were added up was close to $500K.)
The first TUSD Board meeting in which the new Board member will serve will take place this afternoon, Tuesday, November 10, 2017. The week before this Board meeting is to take place, Nintzel publishes this piece, which seems designed to cast Sedgwick in an Ally Miller-style punching bag / figure of fun kind of role, encouraging his readers to assume (in the words of various commenters reacting to the piece) that she is a "snob" with the "IQ of a carrot," an "egomaniac," an "imbecile," an "entitled drunk," an "ass hat," and "not qualified to be an elected official in charge of budgetary decisions."
Interesting. For the record: responsible citizens pay attention to what happens with hundreds of millions of dollars of public funds and ask that these funds be applied in ways that benefit tens of thousands of students in our region. They do not pay attention to SH*T like what is retailed in this irresponsible column, which seems intended to prepare the ground for people to discount what comes out of Sedgwick's mouth in the Board room, which may be nonsense, and may be sensible evaluation of district policy and budgeting practices.
Jim Nintzel: I believe your mother was an educator. For the sake of the educators in this community who need good governance in TUSD, please do a better job in the future reporting on the behavior of the elected officials who govern the district. The public needs to know what is happening with the application of public funds in our largest local school district. They do not need to know what the bartender said about Rachael Sedgwick's attempt to return and admittedly overpriced drink in one of our local bars.
Thanks, Nintz, for the Throwback Thursday Skinny! This one brings back great memories of The Skinny at its finest.
Perhaps the thin-skinned folks commenting don't understand The Skinny is the Tucson equivalent of the. NY Post's Page Six. Granted, it's been a while since I picked up a hard copy of the Weekly, but I recall the column had a descriptive header that doesn't appear in the on-line edition.
Hang em with their own words:
"I got in touch with the bar owner and we both agreed it's not really a big deal and next time I'm there, I should give him a call and we'll have a drink, because I don't imagine he wants the bar's reputation to get besmirched in any way and I'm perfectly happy to let it go," she said.
Somebody's jackass ears are showing...
The point is that the testimony of one independent witness to Ms. Sedgwick's behavior (other than Sedgwick herself) is insufficient to establish exactly what happened -- or the appropriateness of her tone and words in the exchange. Having some familiarity with her demenanor and goals as they appeared in various public forums before the election, I find it unlikely that she "screamed" during the exchange. I also find it unlikely that her point, if she did make reference to her elected position, was that she was a "big shot" deserving of universal deference, which some commenters in this stream seem to assume.
In any case, interviewing additional witnesses would be necessary to establish exactly what happened, and that was not done. If Nintzel were concerned about fairness, he would be more cautious. He gives the impression here that he is about as concerned about fairness as Safier was in reporting about the IEC "TUSD Kids First" before the election, i.e. not concerned in the least. The intent in both cases seems to be disparagement and mudslinging, not unbiased and cautious reporting of issues of real import in understanding local governance.
This form of "reporting" is beneath contempt.
Mister "is this a gossip column" and Mark Stageman, did you miss the part where sedgewick said that she mentioned her position so that the manager would know she had a large facebook following? Clearly both parties involved were interviewed.
She has 222 followers on Facebook. I don't think her rant would hurt this bar or any other bar. To tell you the truth I don't care who you are and really no one else would be to impressed that you are on the TUSD Board. If you want to live big and act like you are someone pay what you ask for. In fact, why did you ask for this type of beer if you weren't willing to pay the price. Stick with draft beer beer like Bud or Coors if you want cheap beer.
This belongs in the "Police Dispatch" section; what a bunch of silliness all around. Anyone who would seek the experience of consuming a "craft" beer because of its ostensible exclusivity deserves what they get. Any bar owner who would sell it without informing the customer of the unusual premium price in advance deserves what they get too.
The only puzzling aspect of this story is why Jim Nintzel thought it was newsworthy, which it could only have been if Ms. Sedgwick were conducting public business at the time of the incident.
"Elise Collins Shields":
Might I suggest that you attend some TUSD Board meetings and contemplate how shockingly underqualified, unprofessional, and low performing the two "chicks" who have been running the show in TUSD for the last four years are?
FYI, the appropriate forum for determining whether an elected official is qualified to be in charge of budgetary decisions is the Board room, not the bar. The quality of these women's decisions about the application of public funds for four years has been unbelievably low.
Looking for decisions to criticize? Try awarding an underqualified, malfeasant liar the highest administrative compensation in the state of Arizona. Or paying him a thousand dollars a day not to take 40 vacation days every year. Or allowing him to hoard money in district bank accounts that should be paid out in teacher bonuses while he gives $10K annual bonuses to overpaid central administrators in his "cabinet."
Wake up and pay attention to what's actually going on in local public governance, not what's going on in Nintzel's bottom-feeding bar gossip worthless column.
Might I suggest that anyone who does not check potential outgoing funds without checking the price is not qualified to be an elected official in charge of budgetary decisions.
St. Mark's United Methodist Church is part of the food packing on Sunday, too.
So she's "perfectly happy to let it go?" So she thinks she was in the right to act like an ass hat? Hmmmm . . . glad she's not in charge of MY kid's school.
Judging a newly elected official based on one journalist's account of one (fairly minor) incident after interviewing one bartender does not make sense. Rachael has already shown in many ways that she cares much about students and parents. Let us wait and see how she performs on the board. I think this year in TUSD will be different in a way that most people will like.
My question is did the business state up front that it was only a 6oz beer?
When I first met the owner, he was incredibly kind to me and I have herd he is like that with everybody. Not a bit of entitlement in him. Rachael Sedgwick looks like a entitled drunk.
Tucson Weekly |
7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation