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.
What good is freedom of speech if you can't hear?
Why should the city government spend city dollars to restore a religious building (albeit historical), which was used primarily for religious purposes, and will profit a religious institution? Separation of church and state anyone? Wouldn't that same church have had the funds to maintain it, if desirable, if they weren't having to pay off the sins of their leaders? This just doesn't pass my tests.
The Catholic church is the richest entity on the planet and they not only cannot but will not restore this iconic facility. Why should the government restore a privately held facility? That is not its role.
Linda, I agree with you on nearly everything you said. It would be absolutely wonderful if we could all give up our guns because we didn't need them. The Japanese have succeeded because their government takes care of their people. Our government does not. Our government has been bought by big money, and given the chance, big money will widen the gap between the haves and the have nots. The middle class is disappearing fast. I forget the exact saying that the tea partiers like to use, but it's something like - the tree of freedom needs to be watered with blood every once in a while, or something on that order. It's depressing to even think of that, and yet, it seems the middle class, without which, this country cannot function, has less and less and less. It seems that everything we have fought for, is being slowly taken away, piece by piece. At some point, the pot is going to boil over. When it does, I want my guns to protect myself and those I love. If the government ever decides they are going to confiscate my guns, they can have them after they kill me. I'd like to remind you that it was our militias that gradually became our army, and drove out the British. It was the British army, of which I spoke earlier, and it was our militias that began the process of driving them out. If we need to replace our corrupt government by force, we can do it again. One would hope we don't have to. I'd rather see us all practice the words of Jesus Christ, and take care of each other instead of ourselves.
The question is irrelevant in our discussion of the Second Amendment. At the time of the writing of that amendment, our country had a very feeble military establishment, and it was necessary to have state militias to protect our freedom. That need has been thoroughly replaced by our fine, well-equipped military forces. World War II would have been impossible to conduct if we only had militias. More than protection from our government, we need protection from people who buy the incredibly deadly guns routinely available at gun shops, gun meets, and pawn shops. The only real alternative I see is to have those guns confiscated on the grounds of public safety. There is a graph showing worldwide figures per country on gun ownership per household versus intentional homicide by shooting. There is a one to one correlation between the two worldwide, with the United States being among the worst and Japan among the very best. 69 people are killed daily by firearms. That's just unacceptable. Read the dissenting opinion in District of Columbia versus Heller.
Pre-1776, please tell me how our army was protecting us from our government. C'mon, please tell me!!!
Tucson Weekly |
3280 E. Hemisphere Loop, Suite 180, Tucson AZ 85706 |
(520) 294-1200 |
Powered by Foundation