i saw the Beach Boys last summer in NJ. They were nothing like the Beach Boys we all remember. The show was pretty bad. Please try and find another group.
Are "the facts" and "the truth" the same thing?
Well, accurate facts may be a starting point if you are to get at "the truth," but, as Safier points out, you may need to investigate the context before you can use accurate facts to get at an intelligent or reasonable interpretation of these facts.
But what if "the facts" are entirely withheld, or you are given bad facts, inaccurate data? Is there any way of getting from no facts or from inaccurate data to "the truth," if the parties that control access to the data won't deliver the goods or correct the faulty inputs for you? Probably not.
If commentators in the press are aware of contextual information that would change the interpretation of the facts deployed by candidates in political campaigns, they should by all means add relevant context. But before they can make that move, first they must require candidates and elected officials to deliver the sound information on which any intelligent / reasonable interpretation must be based.
I am a solid democrat who voted for the three who are the Sanchez rubber-stamp (RS-3) majority right now- Grijalva, Foster and Juarez. As a recently retired TUSD principal I am very familiar with what has happened within our District during the last 12 years, and well beyond. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the TUSD majority, under the leadership of Adelita Grijalva, insisted on going with a single, very inexperienced superintendent such as Sanchez. It is obvious that he was not vetted. Those from his former school district in Texas were thrilled that he left. Hiring him under a sham process violated the promise the Board made to include the community in the selection process. During the selection process Sanchez cornered the Board and told them he would drop out if he were not moved forward as the single candidate. They took the bait. The majority so-called progressives- bend to his ultimatum and he has been in total control since that point. This should have been the first sign of an ego with no control mechanisms. The ONLY decisions that are blessed by the RS-3 are those that Sanchez has already anointed and the religious analogy is not far from the truth. Sanchez believes that he is here for a “reason.” He rationalizes the pressure tactics he used to gain the superintend position by convincing himself and others that this was his “calling“. If any of the Board members question any of his recommendations, he becomes aggressive and challenges the Board. He is condescending and rude to Board members. The tale is definitely wagging the dog.
TUSD is in terrible shape right now. Communication may be plentiful but it is all about Sanchez, with NO direction and support going to the schools. We all know that Adelita is “electable” because her dad is running her campaign. It certainly is not based on her so-called accomplishments over her 12 years as a Board member. Her record is one empty of data proven outcomes and one that is filled with flawed processes (6 superintendents have served while she has been on the Board; that is an average of 2 years per supt.); between 15 to 20 schools have been closed all with mistake after mistake in the processes that were used; enrollment continues to decrease along with the trust of the community. Procurement processes involving less than $100,000 have been turned over to Sanchez so that he can bring his Texan experience and connections to Tucson. His apology was insincere because he knew he was being sneaky when he did it. Sure he was sorry for getting caught but that is all. Adelita’s web page states the following items as her accomplishments or “wanna-be” accomplishments; the facts or questions which should be asked follow.
On her campaign website, Adelita Grijalva claims, “We have faced difficult challenges yet we have moved decisively to..”Most of the listed items are in PROGRESS and not accomplishments. An incumbent should run on their record and not on what they “wanna” do or promise to do. None of the items listed provide any type of outcome data.
Increase the number of preschool opportunities If this is in reference to the day care centers that have been opened- there is no data to show that this will be of any value to the community or specifically to TUSD. Day care is not an area that public school systems are responsible for in Arizona; K-12 is. The fact that Sanchez has his son at one of the day cares and Adelita has her daughter at another should raise the question of why TUSD tax payers are subsidizing their children’s day care. Another question that should be raised is how the day cares were funded. Sanchez took out a loan. Whose signature is on that loan? Did the Board take action on that loan? (This goes to the question above on subsidizing the day care services.)
Another question is why TUSD would openly compete with the private sector in providing day care services and no one wants to hear that TUSD will do a better job than the private sector because no data is available to support that type of claim.
Decrease class size This area is very deceptive since Title I funding was reallocated to accomplish this. It is not clear that all classrooms/courses are at the 27:1 ratio or below and Adelita’s bragging rights should be reserved until the data is in!
Reduce TUSD's carbon footprint. Where is the data?
Reopen previously closed TUSD schools By all means. Open closed schools such as Wakefield and admit that the process to close schools was greatly flawed and caused some tragic errors. Is this something to brag about?
Improve technology for students and employees Where is the data? Is this just another plan in process.
Establish a quality curriculum, including expansion of dual language program
Improve professional development training, including a "Grow Our Own" LeadershipThe fact that the 2014 Curriculum Audit found that TUSD is absent K-12 viable curriculum is the only reason needed not to re-elect Adelita. This should be cause to impeach any Board member who has served for more than one term. But someone who has served for 3 terms and is running for re-election must believe that no one knows about this. What this tells us, is that she never bothered to examine any level of curriculum or to learn about what the District should be doing in this area. She just winged it…and went along for the ride.
Academy to train new campus leaders I know individuals who went through the academy and are now principals. It has been described to me as a rights of passage; a sorority /fraternity environment. Those who made it through “rush” were appointed. It is merely a club; a Sanchez club.
Ensure that every campus library is open and available for students The librarians were cut during the last 12 years. Another mistake.
Ensure that arts and music will be available at every campus
Who in their right mind would argue with this? It is a good sound bite.
Adelita is now admitting that certain schools should not have been closed. These are decisions that one should not casually ride off as “oops.” She claims that she has not always been in the majority. Really? She was in the majority with Mary Belle McCorkle, Bruce Burke and Joel Ireland. She has been in the majority with her two fellow rubber-stampers since 2013. Hiring practices have worsened. Communication from central to the schools is intimidating. It is top down; with no respect for those closest to the children; principals and teachers. Central administration has bloated with the instant issuance of salary increases and bonuses. Those who “go-along” are rewarded. How many principals received bonuses? No teachers did; that is for sure. Adelita is in well- deserved trouble but her daddy has spoken to enough of the shakers and movers in the democratic party to rattle them into supporting her; again.
We are not Illinois, we are not New Jersey, yet I see the same political tactics being used here.
Democrats opting for Adelita, as a choice are selling out the children of TUSD. They are selling out the opportunity to vote for those who would understand that Board Members lead (instead of follow) the superintendent. I think that Betts Putman-Hilgado is an obvious choice but the Grijalva machine and Democratic party have decided there is room only for their “darling.”
Putman-Hilgado is committed to the future of Tucson’s youth; she is tremendously knowledgeable about the workings of TUSD; her strength has been gained from a grass roots effort and not a political machine that clones candidates out of cronyism rather than merit. I have not decided on who will get my second vote. It will go to a democrat that sets apart from a machine that was once for the good people but which has turned into a camp of cronyism and incompetence. I am not part of Putman-Hilgado’s campaign. I am a former teacher and principal with enough experience in the District and in the Democratic party to know what I am talking about.
With all due respect to David Safier- if you are going to “investigate” do so but do not be slanted in your approach. There are a few items listed above that would be of interest to TW readers.
Oh dear, these guys should have parked the bus years ago. Count me out.
Sounds like fun. I'll go.
When we first arrived in Arizona almost 10 years ago, we caught off guard by the state leadership's disregard for public education. The rapid defunding of our local schools since then has been shocking.
In recent national surveys, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities highlighted the fact that Arizona was #1 (again) in the nation in cuts to higher education and #3 in cuts to K-12 schools. Higher ed funding in Arizona is 48% lower this year than it was in 2008. In other words, in just the past six years our state government has cut university budgets almost in half.
With this recent series of cuts in mind, it should come as no surprise to anyone in Arizona that we also lead the nation in tuition increases. Costs to students (and parents) have risen by 80% in the same six year time period. Why? Prior to the catastrophic cuts in 2008, Arizona had already been strip-mining university funding. If you don't believe me, just try Googling "Arizona university cuts" for 2006. And 2003. Etc., etc. The universities can only cut so many positions and services before they can no longer absorb the costs. Each massive wave of cuts has also come along with an increase in student enrollment and the same inflationary price increases the rest of have seen in the last decade -- higher cooling costs, liability insurance, etc.
By 2011, the AZ Board of Regents had issued the following update to Governor Brewer's office: "The University System has eliminated more than 2,100 positions (an 11% reduction in workforce); merged, consolidated or disestablished 182 colleges, schools, programs and departments; closed eight extended campuses; delayed degree programs, and has been forced to raise tuition significantly to retain quality and program offerings." This, again, was after years of cuts and reductions that had already occurred. The response from our AZ state government? Another $200 million in university cuts for 2012.
In the meantime, the groups that have been profiting ideologically and/or financially from this trend have been spending a lot of money to distract people with stereotypical images and inflammatory messages. Forget the HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars in budget cuts to our local schools and research universities...let's talk about unions! Bureaucrats! Those worn stereotypes ignore the fact that Arizona is a long-time 'Right-to-Work' state that dissolved union organizing rights; that AZ public schools have already gone through several staff reduction cycles ; and the fact that national surveys show that Arizona now has the lowest K-12 public school administrative costs in the entire U.S. Old stereotypes are much easier to repeat than factual data any day of the week.
C'mon, Arizona. The "Yes, but..." conversations need to stop. We can't continue shrugging our shoulders and saying things like "YES...our elected state officials have continued to cut hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars from our universities, BUT I feel that the Regents/U of A are to blame for the largest tuition hike in America because they have too many secretaries."
We're abdicating our responsibility as voters here, and this type of argument is a bit like spending time debating the cost of the bathroom tile while some guy is busy tearing all of the plumbing out of our house. We can undo the damage here, but our focus had better change soon.
TUSD Needs New Leadership: Dr. Stegeman has indeed been on the Board for some time, but, unlike Ms. Grijalva, he has supported changes in the counter-productive, anti-student way TUSD does business.
We all know that TUSD spends a criminally small percentage of its revenues in the classroom...the only place it makes a difference for student learning. According to the most recent audited figures that percent was 49.2%, despite all the huge economies of scale enjoyed by TUSD. Dr. Stegeman proposed a policy change to work towards putting at least 55% of TUSD revenues into the classroom. Ms. Grijalva opposed this.
We all know that the Governing Board has virtually no clue how TUSD actually spends money because administration after administration have hid money...particularly the desegregation money that has been used as the administration's slush fund. Stegeman has proposed hiring an internal auditor who would report directly to the Board. Ms. Grijalva has opposed this.
Working to get rid of all incumbents assumes they are all worthless, and that simply is not the case. There are significant differences between Ms. Grijalva...who supports the TUSD culture of insider dealing and puts the need for transparency and student learning way down her list of priorities... and Dr. Stegeman who has actually championed the needs of TUSD's classrooms.
Oh please I live in the same town as Grijalva and let me tell you it is more like the legal citizens of Arizona have been Ignored and Used !
"All these poor families are splintered and more kids forced to grow up apart from parents".
Well the "parents" are the ones who have put themselves and their many Federal funded children in that position. They are responsible for putting their families in this position. They know they are breaking the law coming across the border but the lure of Anchor Baby money is too much.
And his statement of No senate seat is worth that. He depends on the illegals anchor babies to fill his voter base. Anchor Baby are money and votes. The Democrats (my political party) even redrew the districts lines so that he could get a part of Tucson. The very liberal University part of Tucson. So he could get more votes.
One illegal family with several anchor babies who have more Federal Funded babies can out vote my one vote.
The only ones being ignored and abused are the American people.
Black unemployment up under Obama and the rich got richer.
There must be no solution to either scenario.
Both my kids attended University of Arizona schools at that time, so i was tracking this issue pretty closely. Montini's complaint that facts do not make truth applies equally well to this column.
Yes, the legislature cut state funding for the university system, and yes, the Regents replaced the shortfall with money raised by tuition increases. Those are facts, but the truth is that the Regents made no effort to curtail any less critical spending. I examined several years worth of University of Arizona budgets and was shocked to see how little actually went into teaching and learning. A huge percentage of the money UA spent went to bureaucrats, their underlings and their underling's underlings. It could have made a difference in the amount we paid for tuition...that doubled during the 5 years my kids attended UA colleges...if the Regents had asked for some expenditure reductions in the areas of bureaucracy at the colleges. Just how many assistants to the dean and how many secretaries to the assistants does one college need? The truth is the Board of Regents chose to replace the money taken by the legislature by requiring students and their families to dig much deeper into their own pockets instead of asking the bureaucracy to do its part to make up the shortfall.
If Safier had a deep belief in the need for "honesty" and "openness" in this campaign, in my humble opinion he would have used his platform in the Weekly to correct some conspicuously bad data circulated by one of the candidates he supports.
Bottom line: I don’t buy Safier’s self-presentation as someone who cares about “honesty” in political discourse. It bothers me that he continues to try to imply that what he is concerned about here is that Stegeman is not being “open” with voters.
Commentators can’t convince the public that they really value “honesty” and “openness” when they demand it of their enemies, but not of their friends. If what the game is about is die-hard, old school partisanship -- digging up dirt on your opponents and ignoring the transgressions of your allies, it shouldn’t be pitched to the public as a higher and more disinterested form of commentary.
Luis does his own audio books and they are a joy to read (as are the print versions, of course). Anyone who has heard him do a reading knows exactly what I'm talking about.
I love Adam sandler by Christy smiley
I love Adam sandler
Watch "Flor De Muertos" in it's entirety. It offers a peek at this wonderful mind.
What to do, though, if you're the Wildcat editor? Do you reject the piece because it is so completely indefensible in its "logic" (or lack thereof) and so obviously morally reprehensible? Or do you err on the side of freedom of speech and give the asshole plenty of rope with which to hang himself in the public square, thus setting off a firestorm of discussion on campus (not unlike the one happening here)?
The former seems pure and right, but the latter is tempting, and has its own benefits as well. Collectively, as a community, calling this guy out for the asshole that he is and publicly repudiating his stupid and dangerous ideas serves a purpose, at the very least a "teaching moment".
Comedy Central folks. Left wing jokes. Spin zone for sure. Funny distortions by the leftists. What else do you find in the weakly? This is what I read this rag for jokes by the left.
bslap - looking at the wrong end of the horse...
The .01 of 1 percent and their enablers and employees in the White House, Congress, State Houses and local Boards of supervisors and City Councils who are the ones driving down wages and turning USAmerica into a 3rd world country -- not a few immigrants...
Well Tom, it looks like your "fake ass" won. Are all his voters the problem?
Tucson Weekly |
3725 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation