Here's a clue on platforms, Democrats' or Republicans': They are meaningless statements that say little in terms of actual legislation to be proposed and embraced by the winning party. Like "in my first 100 days, I will...." Platforms, like bonfires, take lots of short term energy to build, only to be set afire immediately after the election has been decided.
Hillary? Lots of dollars will flow to the "educational reformists" and her campaign benefactors while the wheels on the bus go round and round. Bill will be scheduled to speak to the same groups for hundreds of thousands per brain fart, while teachers plead for supplies. Get ready for creeping progressive incrementalism (and that's if Clinton actually beats Trump).
And that is by no stretch of the imagination a sure thing.
Let’s forget all the social engineering, political and religious agendas, and focus on the results — when a child, any child, graduates from high school, they should be able to fully read and write in English, all thought being able to read and write in any other language would be a bonus, they should be able to use critical thinking skills to see the world as it is and not just be a “good” consumer who buys lock, stock and barrel what the politicians, marketers, scientists and religions are trying to sell. They should be able to do math that allows them to balance a checkbook — unlike the federal, state and local governments — and know when financial institutions are setting them up for failure and a debt-ridden life. Finally, they should be taught how to lead a safe, secure and healthy life, free of those who would yoke them into lives destroyed by fast food, fast cars, easy money, fuzzy ethics, loose morals, drugs, alcohol, tobacco and sitting on the couch in front of the television or computer screen waiting for everything to be delivered to their door.
These two women had the courage to stand up and have their voices heard. They were not intimidated by the bully of the block. They voiced their support for our men and women in blue. If only there would be more of us with the courage to say I've had enough, I'm done with the B.S. If we only had the courage to say, We will not tolerate this type of lawless behavior in our city, state, or in our country any longer. Our laws and those courageous men and women who enforce them have our full support. We will not back down, we will not allow a movement that condones the killing of our officers to intimidate us. If those entrusted fail to do their job and are reckless in their judgement, then they will be held accountable. However, a jury of their peers will be the ones to pass judgement upon them and find them and either guilty or not guilty, and not a vigilantly mob ready to lynch them without having the luxury of due process.
Many African Americans in America, were lynched without a trial, they were found guilty solely on the basis of the color of their skin and murdered. However, isn't the' Black Lives Matter' organization demanding officers also be charged without a trial, because of the color of their uniform ?
Both the Democratic and Republican Party platforms on education are weak, and do nothing to address the structural problems with our current public education system.
What is needed at this juncture is a separate system along side the existing system. A system with a completely different curriculum, a focus on personalized learning, project-based assessment and simulation, and connections to apprenticeship.
Our current system is too powerful and too tightly balanced in an equilibrium of forces - you cannot change one without the others rebelling against the change.
Also, the industrial era structure of standardization and mass-schooling no longer fits with a population that is wants to have more control of what, when, where, and how it learns. Everything about education and learning needs to change. The only way to do it is to start over with a new model that does not have the current system's constraints.
Reporting on the men shouting the obscenities was a good call. It credits the women by showing that they have the ability to influence those who may not believe as they do. It shows that people can meet somewhere in the middle and cast aside some of their negativity. I give credit to these ladies for this action and the writer of this article for including their interaction with these men.
----It is also necessary to reduce stigma surrounding “invisible” disabilities.
If you want to help you will stop saying there is one.
Regardless of what anyone else might do, you will stop.
Harold A. Maio
Got it! Good bye.
Thank you ladies. We don't need you to report on the malcontents across the street shouting obscenities. They are part of the problem.
I have long believed that the cities/departments that hire officers within 5 years of completing TPD training should have to reimburse TPD for a portion of the training costs.
I believe the point "Another Anonymous Commenter" is trying to make, Hakeson, is the very well founded, reasonable, and civilly expressed point that the public needs fairly complete and honest information about local governance delivered through the media -- mainstream, alternative or via citizen commentary -- if they are to make well-founded, constructive decisions about how to vote in elections. That's the point of the democratic system, isn't it, to be able to vote leaders out when their records in office do not merit them being entrusted with additional terms in office? What do you do, then, when certain parties who control or influence local media coverage decide it falls within their purview to prevent certain facts -- say, for example, the gross administrative incompetence of a key figure employed by a public institution or a systematic, pervasive practice of lying to cover up problems and irregularities -- from reaching the public's attention? Those who know what is going on and believe they have a responsibility to communicate it find ways to get the information out, and sometimes that may involve anonymous commentary to protect those in vulnerable positions.
You choose to post under your name, I assume with good reason, and others choose not to, we can only assume also with good reason. If their commentary is civil and their information relevant, it is their business how they choose to communicate, not yours. If you don't believe information delivered anonymously is worth considering, discount it in your own mind and move on. In any case, it would be best to refrain from expressing your opinion by issuing peremptory, uncivil commands to other commenters. "Say it and sign it, or shut up!" How rude.
More power to Citizens United, "Dark Money" in campaigns, secret agreements for holding people in foreign countries for the United States, on and on. I do understand the need to protect whistleblowers. There are ways around it if you really wanted to receive the information and relay it through a third party as received from "tipster" or "informant". I also understand "time is money" and so much is done on the cheap these days. I also realize there are "unstable" people living among us. How can I hide if you use my first name?
No, Harvey, you have not been grounded and sent to your room. You've just been asked not to impose your preferences ("Say it and sign it, or shut up!"), which many other readers do not share, on people who have good reason to maintain their anonymity when they comment.
As one of the anonymous commenters above noted, the mainstream media organizations in Tucson do not do a good job getting comprehensive, sound information about local governance to the public. The Arizona Daily Star, for example, sometimes does not report relevant information on TUSD, and there have even been instances within the last year of the Star deleting online comments that criticize TUSD leadership or that contain information not favorable to the district. In this context, alternative channels of information are much needed. Safier won't address many of the relevant topics directly in his blogs, probably because of his relationships within the Democratic Party, but some of those who comment in the streams on his pieces have been willing to do so. I hope they will continue; it would be an unfortunate loss if we could not keep hearing from them.
Grounded, and sent to my room.
I work at Reid Park. I've almost ran over a few of you suckers because you're staring really hard into your phone and not paying attention to what surrounds you.
Flat as Pickachu
When I come through
If you don't move
You will have the blues
Hakeson (H. Akeson?) : The Tucson Weekly's policy is to permit anonymous comments and Safier has written on more than one occasion that it is his intention to respect commenters' anonymity. Some of the most well-informed and valid commentary in these streams during the past three years has come from people who choose to remain anonymous, and in some cases, what is said in anonymous comments seems to indicate that this may be because the authors of the comments have direct connections with the institutions discussed (employees, or, in the case of a school district, parents with children enrolled in the district's schools).
If you have never been in the position of someone with a stake in an institution who does not have the freedom to comment under your own name because you fear retaliation, be grateful that you've never been in what, for those who experience this, is a difficult and uncomfortable situation.
I read these comment streams regularly and I do not want people in this situation to be denied the ability to provide their perspectives in Tucson Weekly comment streams. If you don't like anonymous commentary, you can always choose not to read comments that do not have names attached to them. You should not, in my opinion, be advocating that other readers be denied the ability to access information provided by anonymous commenters because you do not happen to like this form of commentary.
Ratt is back! In full effect!
Gone for days, but no one gave a shit!
Except for me, in a sense.
Because I love reading ignorance!
I think the time has come for real names, full disclosure of interests are a requirement for publication. You have all the right in the world to your opinions and acceptance in the public debates but let us end the hiding behind unsigned views.
Say it and sign it, or shut up!
Let's really be honest – dark money and special interests = all of them. Happy Bastille Day!
David, why would we expect to hear or see anything substantive regarding comprehensive K-12 proposals from either Ducey or anyone else until after the 2016 election cycle is over? The people to be asking questions about "next steps" are the Democrats and Republicans seeking legislative seats in the August primary and November general elections. Ducey isn't going to put any kind of sweeping plan out until he knows the names of the new players and the numbers on each side. Also, why in the world would we expect that a died-in-the wool ideologue like him will propose anything other than a continuance of his pro-charter, pro-privatization, anti-public schools campaign?
The two main political blogs in this town (this one and Blog for Arizona) focus far too much on what is going on in state and national politics. The TUSD Board election (which has enormous consequences given that TUSD is the second largest school district in the state and the bellwether for the "state of education" locally) and other races for local office deserve more attention from these two outlets because God knows we won't get it from the ever-weakening Star and the TV stations that focus on stories about fires and car accidents. The Weekly would garner more attention and respect if they got over their obsession with Ally Miller and Doug Ducey and devoted more time to serious coverage of local races whose outcomes will have serious effects on daily life in Tucson and Pima County.
Don't let the bully intimidate you Larry. Personal insults are all they have left. Look what they have done to our public schools.
Tucson Weekly |
7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation