What can Rosemont Copper do about the one square mile 2900 ft deep hole in the Santa Ritas that would "raise the environmental standard of mining operations?" The same question for the mountain of waste rock and tailings covering 3500 acres of Public Land. I've seen the "after" rendition of the "reclamation" and I see nothing there to suggest a "higher environmental standard." As for Arizona history, we are reaping the results of that history now with polluted mines seeping toxic fluids, 350,000 acres of tailings piles blowing in the wind throughout the state, boom/bust ghost towns, polluted streams and aquifers---mining is not the most important pillar of the AZ economy today and Tucson is seeking more tech and medical business investment,along with tourism. Spoiling the beautiful landscapes is akin to killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Rosemont jobs would come at great cost to local economies and to the environment and to an area enjoyed by the public on a regular basis, including portions of the Arizona Trail which would be buried by the waste piles! The Rosemont deposit is low quality as evidenced by the ratio of ore to waste rock---1.9 billion tons of waste for 600 million tons of copper- bearing ore over the life of the mine. This mine at Rosemont Junction is a bad idea and I have also heard that stated by former miners! Mine the reserves at other mines in valid mining districts where the environment has already been destroyed!
The writer has drawn parallels between different subject matter. The subject matter must meet certain requirements of similarity to evidence the parallel drawn. The Nazi did horrific things to people and to try and attach these heinous acts to Rosemont Copper is slanderous and ridiculous, to say the least. To draw a parallel between propaganda the Nazi used to convey an image and of a young girl utilizing alternative energy is about as bizarre as a University of Arizona professor plagiarizing the same photo and repainting it to meet his Nazi standards for propaganda. Humanities such as painting are subjective and hope to convey a unique way the artist presents a subject, this is the painter or photographers gift to society. It can lead to a better understanding of the subject matter, as seen in a unique way. A painter or a writer can change a subject into another outlook, good or evil. When I see this picture, I see an intelligent looking and dignified young girl holding an integral and world saving solution to her future – an alternative energy source. Alternative energy will require more copper to make, approximately 35% more copper in many applications.
In addition, this child is a real human being that was used in an appropriate manner, by drawing the twisted and invalid parallel in print and in repainting this child to fit into a Nazi propaganda category has diminished the positive message of our children and alternative energy use. People will sometimes get carried away with their points of view and try to convince others to their point of view - as is this case of this writer and this painter who sees this beautiful and positive representation as part of twisted evil thinking.
Yes. Let's demonize Rosemont for wanting to raise the environmental standard of mining operations. Let's demonize them for wanting to invest Billions of dollars into our economy, add hundreds of full time well paying jobs, and create additional jobs through suppliers/contractors in an down economy with over 8.5% unemployment. Associating Rosemont's advertiving with Nazi propaganda is just a ploy to try to stop the mine. Read your Arizona history. This State was built on mining. Yeah, old mines have been pretty bad to the environment, so lets raise the standard and expect all mines to meet the standards that Rosemont is suggesting.
az lightfighter---time to remove your rose colored glasses. What you "see" is not reality. Rosemont has a few solar panels for "show and tell." The power to operate the mine would come from new transmission lines coming from the west side over the mountains to the mine. Nine million gallons of diesel fuel will be burned each year to support the operation. Twenty thousand tons of ammonium nitrate will be exploded each year. The land will not be scarred for generations to come? Exactly what do you think a square mile wide 2900 ft deep pit will do to the land and how about the 3500 acres of waste rock and tailings--ALL on Public Land? I doubt that you have seen the Rosemont artist's rendition of AFTER conservation. The entire area will be forever ugly or scarred which ever you prefer. Rosemont Copper only invests in the community now for PR and image purposes. As for "political BS" Rosemont Copper certainly supports any politician who will take their campaign contributions.
WOW Really? I always thought art was in the eye of the beholder. I see a company that is willing to invest in the community and use renewable energy. Not rape the land and leave it scared for generations to come. I really hate the way so many people want to turn something like this into political BS. Shame on you UofA!
Kudos to Rosemont Mines, for putting up with this CR@%%^, Hang in there. This is one of the reasons that this town is not growing. Everytime we get in a new company to develope their base operations here, here comes the Old Tucson Polititions, that do not want any changes. It is time for new blood in the political areana with new views. I travel alot and in my travels, Tucson Arizona seems to be one of the laughing stock citys of this country. We are famous, but for what!!!!
Webster's definition of propaganda----any systematic, widespread dissemination or promotion of particular ideas, doctrines, practices,etc. to further one's own cause or to damage an opposing one.
That isn't a bad painting, but the article is wrong. Not all propaganda is wrong, or evil, or bad. Propaganda is simply choosing to express one side of an argument. The Rosemont detractors have a voice, and so does Rosemont. The United States during WWII also created propaganda, and continues to do so. By the author's definition, all advertising is propaganda. I'll give this one a big yawn.
Great article. Love the Copper Girl. congratulations.
Chris, I also know propaganda when I see it and your comment is just that. Exactly what false and misleading information from Rosemont opponents are you referring to?
As for Rosemont propaganda---how about the claim that the mine tours are in the top ten AZ tourist attractions (no mention of the Grand Canyon!) How about the U-tube video of Sturgis and Ryan driving down #83 showing folks where the mine would be visible--arriving at the intersection of 83/82 then stating that "you can't see the mine from there, you will only be able to see it from the 3 mile section of highway as you pass the mine. " That's hogwash, it would be visible from most of the Sonoita area including Rain Valley to the east! How about the claim that Rosemont will produce 10% of US copper needs--while most of the copper would go to Asian smelters to be refined. Truthful? Not exactly. How about the free dinners and bus transportation to the first scoping meeting, for those unemployed people to submit positive comments to the Forest Service when they thought they would be applying for jobs at the mine? Was that propaganda? And how are opponents trying to silence proponents? I think it's the other way around. Rosemont Copper is trying to silence public opinion with their "community support" money, using the names of the recipient organizations to reflect support for the mine. (if the name of your organization appears on that list would you speak negatively about Rosemont Copper?) And Rosemont Copper has solicited people to comment to news articles (are they also paid?) How many Chambers of Commerce have they joined (welcome or not) so that they can be the bully in the room and silence opposition there as well?
Professor Gipe is exposing Rosemont Copper for WHO they are and I salute him!
University academics have almost a blank check when applying colorful propaganda to promote their views in the classroom so let's put this art professor into proper context.
Rosemont's ads are forward looking and link themselves to "green energy" such as solar and wind technology. A crusty old guy holding the solar panel outside a nursing home would have indeed been less appealing than the young girl...but once again they are linking themselves to the future.
Did y'all forget that behind every bit of "green technology" is very large quantities of high-purity copper that needs first to be discovered, tested for continuity/grade by expensive drilling and other metallurgical/mining/economic studies, permitted/approved, and ultimately excavated from an open or underground mine in a "scenic santa ritas" mountain range somewhere, then processed, and shipped to the manufacturing entities that need it.
Get over the advertising images...everyone in private and public companies uses favorable PR to promote and protect their brand. For once we don't have blatent sex trying to sell something.
I also know propaganda when I see. And this article is nothing but pure propaganda designed to demonize Rosemont Copper and its supporters.
Rosemont Copper’s opponents complaints about Rosemont Copper’s public relations campaign are amazing considering all of the misleading and false information they have been flooding our community with over the last five years, their demonization of Rosemont Copper and its supporters and their efforts to silence Rosemont’s supporters.
I for one am thankful that Rosemont Copper has been able to successfully counter these efforts through their site tours program, public meetings and a well run PR campaign, which has gotten their message out to the public.
The trick with farcical comedy, I mean.
The gamely trick with facial comedy is that the humor is propelled, in great part, by the energy of the scene, which is propelled by the investment of the audience. This symbiotic relationship is ever present in the opening scene of Taking Steps. The story's slow start, inundated with lengthy exposition and relative bickering between the aforementioned vapid dimwits who's sole purpose is to link the comic relief, which could be said about most comedic plays, is dry and at the mercy of the elements. Talent, mutual investment and environment. Conveniently, Ms. Forrester visited a performance that dragged along through silence, allotting her all the tasty fodder any bitterly discriminative critic could desire. Should she have come any other day, she might have witnessed what most audiences have experienced prior to and since her visit. Hilarity, investment and applause.
But to be fair, the story is frail in regions, plot thinned to transparency, lengthy in conclusion and dry at points. Unfortunately, sometimes you just have have to put down r pad and pretense and laugh out loud. There's always a payoff for laughter. Always a reward.
It was an absolutely wonderful show. Many of my neighbors reported really enjoying it.
WOW! This review is absolutely right!
I saw the show last night (4/22) and had to again this afternoon (4/23)! I have never been this impressed with a college musical as much as I am with this one!
If you can get tickets, GO and SEE Into the Woods - it's so WORTH it!
P.S. I didn't mind the IPad - it brought the show forward to today's audiences!! LOVED IT and the show!
My apologies to Jimmy Boegle. I may have been having a flashback to a former AzStar editor - an unfair comparison. Thanks for setting me straight, rickydale.
In the interest of full disclosure I am the director of Fifth of July reviewed above. I, of course, disagree with its general and unsupported statements. My real issue, however, is Ms. Forrester's using the occasion of the death of one of America's greatest playwrights to make a cheap reviewer's quip about the play "dying onstage." It is appalling, disrespectful, and crass. Whatever my comment bodes for future reviews from Ms. Forrester i don't know nor do i care. My only hope is that in future reviews (of my work and everyone else's) she will be a little more thoughtful, respectful, and have a little more taste.
Here's the deal.
A lot of people are really upset about Sherilyn's relationship with Kathy Allen. No one in the theatre wants to see the critic from the Weekly and the critic from the Star come to a show, sit right next to one another, and then write painfully similar (positive OR negative) reviews. I disagree with Stage Hand's comment that Jimmy Boegle wants theatre in Tucson to go under. The Tucson Weekly has long been an extremely generous advocate of the Arts in Tucson and a lot of that credit is due to Jimmy. They don't have to cover anything they don't want to cover and they cover every single thing they can. The headline reflected the review published and nothing else, quite accurately, too.
I'm one of the actors in FIFTH OF JULY and what I take issue with is the comments about Lanford Wilson and our production of his play both being dead just because Glen Coffman had the audacity to make a heartfelt acknowledgement of his passing and his contribution to American theatre on opening night. That's snarky, it's not artistic criticism. Snarky isn't even necessarily a bad thing, if there's some wit to it (James Reel, we really miss you right now). That was cheap and gross and unfortunately it's all anyone in the Tucson theatre scene can talk about. I have people coming up to me every day now and apologizing to me for what was said in this review and not because the review was negative but because it was hideously nasty. It's almost as though the cast and their performances have been completely disregarded (since they weren't actually assessed in any way in this review) as bad simply due to what appears to be some kind of vendetta with Glen and / or Winding Road Theatre Ensemble.
Sherilyn is absolutely entitled to her opinion and she should make it clear, that's her job as a Theatre Critic, not to give a pass or an easy review or whatever. I don't mind a bad, even a scathing review -- if it's thoughtful, specific and well written.
Thank God for Nathan Christensen. I'd take a bad review from him any day.
Jeez Louise. Okay, let's start with the review. Ms. Forrester, I think once you've emptied both barrels, you don't need to reload and start again. We got that you hated the production by paragraph 1; your editor (whom I believe would be happy if all theater companies went under) really gave it away with that knife-in-the-gut headline. But you go on and on and on and...see? It's no fun when you know what's coming.
I imagine a cold-hearted, turtlenecked, schmoe dictating to herself as she types, chuckling with glee, like Higgins when he thinks he's finally caught Magnum with the Ferrari. However, I don't think that is really who you are. I don't think it gives you pleasure to trash a show. I think you are a defender, of sorts, of theater done well. I wish you could also be a true defender of the effort. You know what it's like to do theater. Have you forgotten the feeling of being panned? I am in no way saying you should give a show a pass, just because someone dared to put up the money, get a cast, rent a space, pay for ads, spend weeks of their lives for, in the end, pennies. I'm saying, wasn't there SOME little positive thing you could say? A spoonful of sugar, as the saying goes.
Now to the show. I'm going and you can't stop me. Try as you might, and you did try...I'm going anyway. I like both the Wilson plays they're doing and I'm pretty sure I'm going to like these productions. If I don't, I'll come back and eat crow. And I don't like crow one bit.
Tucson Weekly |
3725 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation