Anyone who has lived in Arizona for more than a couple of years knows that politics in Arizona have always been about favoritism, nepotism, cronyism and a host of “-isms” that take from the poor (the people of Arizona) and give to the rich (politicians, special interests and, well, the rich).
What makes Arizona different from those other states with similar governments, and South American dictatorships, is our politicians – not the best that money can buy – have no long-term loyalties and will turn on each other if they think it is politically expedient or potentially profitable. This is the only thing that keeps them in check (more or less, but as of late more less than more).
Living in Arizona is like living in Hollywood’s version of the Old West. We the people are the homesteaders and pioneers just trying to make a living and a new life in this beautiful and rugged land, while our politicians are the rustlers and outlaws determined to take everything from us the easy way – not with guns in this case, but with “laws” and “propositions” – and then a stranger come to town and promises real law and order and the people vote for him or her and then we discover they are just another outlaw carpet bagger intent on stealing money and raping the land, or is it raping the people and stealing the land – whatever.
"our frightening global context, fed by increasingly violent wars and human suffering"
What???? We live in a time of unprecedented peace with low crime rates and soaring populations. Where do people get this garbage?
Let the people vote!
Just amazing. A private school president whose family clears almost half a million per year out of the school was running our school board. Only in Arizona.
What Again, He was quoting Charlie Murphy.
I was in favor of the other initiative, which did not make the ballot. I am not sure I will vote for this one.
To say that all racists are Trump supporters displays just what an ignorant bigot Danehy is.
You have to read the entirety of what Safier wrote, in sequence, in the weeks leading up to the passage of 123 to understand what his role was. Selectively dipping into the passages he recommends reading in specific pieces he's selected for you will not give you the whole picture.
The way he manipulated you in selecting certain passages for you to read -- out of the context in which they appeared within the frame of the weeks preceding the vote on 123 -- is like the method he used in writing about the proposition once the incorrect decision was made that the proposition, bad as it was, had to be promoted to the electorate: then we heard that it would "give 70% of the missing funding back" to the schools (inaccurate) and not much about the triggers, cap on spending for education, or unsustainable rates of distribution from the land trust.
Worse than Safier's behavior with 123 is his ongoing role vis a vis TUSD. He is not honest. He is a tool of the machine, whose conscience seems, if you read his coverage of the district for the past three years and compare what he writes with what is actually going on in the schools, to have been co-opted by the lying politicians with whom he fraternizes. He persuades some people who have no direct link to the schools to go along with his way of thinking about the district. The fact that people like him influence public opinion and voting behaviors is a large part of the reason why the correct decision, from a parent perspective, is to continue removing students from these schools: the district is not an educational institution. It is a tool of a political machine where decisions will be made by people who are placing the needs of self-interested administrators and the needs of their network of cronies above the needs of children enrolled in the schools and the need to be honest with the public about what ACTUAL conditions and problems are.
You seem to play a game of "catch me if you can," appearing now on one side and now on the other of the TUSD Board majority fence. Have you in recent weeks received enough persuasion / courting from the powers-that-be to give up your pout about how 123 funds were allocated? Is it time to get back behind your former friends in the months leading up to the election? If so, it will be another sad but TUSD-typical betrayal of the best interests of the children in these "schools."
It will be a "reform" candidate, meaning no,"more money for REAL public schools" candidates need apply. It woll be a Phoenix area, Goldwater, maybe recycled legislative , crony.
The regulations will evolve to a simpler, more realistic level after the benefits of legalization accrue and the ingrained, irrational fear of this non-toxic plant subsides. It is absurd to favor prohibition over a legal, regulated market for a product dramatically less harmful than alcohol, tobacco or even caffeine.
"Some locals are not okay with treating a joint like a bottle of gin"
True, alcohol being so much more dangerous than cannabis,
being put on the same level is sort of wrong. But the present system is even worse, so I'd be okay with it.
Wonder who Ducey wants in the job?
"There's a cue and it can become an exercise of patience..." I think you mean "there's a *queue*," no?
David, I see your point after re-reading those two posts. I really do hate to be in the position of saying I told you so about the outcome of 123, especially in TUSD. I did my best to publicize the multiple viewpoints about the likely outcomes of passage. I am not in the least surprised by Ducey's position today. Let's hope between the primary and the general election there will be a large sweep of the AZ Legislature.
To: Perspective of a teacher currently not teaching
Your point that parent satisfaction is something separate and apart from academic excellence is true. Parent surveys are not correlated with academic gains either. At least not a current levels. However, at higher levels, they are. If you want to get to the 90th percentile in academic gains, you have to be constantly improving the relationship with parents because you need perfect teamwork between parents students and teachers to pull that off.
Also, the massive Early Childhood Longitudinal Studies found that a child's attitude towards school is the best predictor of future academic gains. Directly measuring the students attitude or indirectly measuring it through the parents attitude is a must if a school is going to be in the business of improving results by managing and improving attitudes.
Douchey only looks at the bottom line, what he and his cohorts can make on any deal -- get them out!
Military bands?!?!? Research how many different military bands there are and how much Is spent
on them a year. A billion a year for "bands". If true about McSally, good for her. I finally agree with her on one thing. Doesn't mean she should be re-elected though. And dear Sg, you are correct Ducey is lying when his lips move. And he has a big supporting cast of ex house speakers. Hopefully Biggs loses the primary. Oh rats, that means he would get a job with Ducey's ex speakers job service. Maybe Children's Health care director In his 1984 world, right Regina Cobb?
Ducey is Lucy and Prop 123 was the football.
I also disagreed with you David on the yes vote. I voted no hoping that the State Treasurer or the Legislature might take it up again. I did not agree with the ransom of already voted upon funds. Nor did I trust the constitutional changes and spending caps that were slid into the deal.
However now that it passed and we have an election coming up in which all of the state legislature seats are up for grabs, I would urge fellow voters and citizens to replace ALL of those who helped put Prop 123 on the ballot. Even if they currently claim to stand on the side of education, they helped craft or support that funding limit nightmare in some way.
I agree that Ducey has painted a clear picture in his statement about waiting for results and outcomes. I feel you are correct that no more funds will be given. Either the positive results will be "enough" and a job well done or negative results will be read as "funding makes no postive impact". Therefore either way he can craft an argument for stiffling funding to public education.
votesmartamerica? Even Politico supported her bill along with Democratic sponsor. We were spending one half a billion dollars on bands to play for generals and travel.
Lawmakers who have been advocating for reducing the size and cost of military bands — now a half-billion-dollar a year enterprise — won a key victory Thursday with passage of a provision that would bar funding for "musical units" to play at dinners, dances or social events.
The provision, the handiwork of Rep. Martha McSally, a retired Air Force colonel, would ensure funds are not spent on "entertaining generals, dignitaries and elected officials, all the different type of things that have nothing to do with appropriate military ceremonies" but reserved for ceremonial tasks such as funerals.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/military-bands-cut-back-house-224450#ixzz4Hc4Ss6NW
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
Thank you Martha.
Tucson Weekly |
7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation