Ba boo is my guy. Anyone who attempts to have his lover deported to Mexico during a lover's spat is just the kind of wacko we need. Keep AZ wacky say I.
Been into the Groovies since the mid eighties. Certainly one of the most underrated bands out there. "Groovies Greatest Grooves" is a real favorite in my rotation. Like earlier stated, they stand the test of time. Long live rock.
None read the initiative where it states that the
ARIZONA STATE DEPARTMENT of MARIJUANA LICENSE AND CONTROLS.
It is this department that will issue the tag from a city jees'
In obtaining a plant clone a person will sign an agreement that the vendor supplies and returns to the department of Marijuana License and Controls the form maybe an application waiting for confirmation to allow the sale .
Vendor that will need a special license to sell plant clone as well. A piece of paper no unlike a hunting license. This will be an agreement with the purchaser and the State Department of Marijuana License and Controls.
This document that a purchaser signs is an agreement that you dont live in a restricted area ie; cities, won't have children under 21 in the residence. Won't clone sell or transfer any of the product purchased for propagation. Only certain STRAINS WILL BE ALLOWED FOR RETAIL, LEAVING THE RETAILER AND GROWER WITH STRONGER PRODUCTS. In this agreement you will give up all civil and criminal rights when signing. Open the door for the new LEO to kick down the door to check compliance just just signed away your rights if you want to grow 6 plants
Would be best to do it illegally rather than sign an agreement. Even Montgomery in his debate stated what this would change in enforcement and can't believe some would be so blind to vote for this. so if prop 205 passes dont sign an agreement to grow or you just fucked yourself got it
Just whom do you think was the originator of all the legalize of this travesty of 205? get a clue dummy it was LEO.
There is more legalize back doors called "Notwithstanding" which means basically if anything was in place before.
So if you didn't like what was going on before you definitely won't like this.
But hey As long as I got a Bob Marley, Tye Dyed, Birkenstock, tattooed, body pierced liberal, rap, new world order concert to go all is well. I can vap, concentrate, dab, to my heart's delight screw the medically needy. This is progressive stone and tax hey baby.
How's that for asking for consideration when first I need to state whom I want their endorsement. And now let's hear what a republican is ( the most often defined here) and then there is a libertarian. Which slaps the core of both so one want that, It hurts to find I was damaging to myself looking for the boogie man in politics.
If funding is the issue why won't MPP disclose whom their contributors are ? The MPP that got Arizona the mmj law the whole entire board has been replaced. Now Big money industry replaced the entire board. Everyone that sits on the board are from big industry. According Dan Riffle the previous founder and Director of MPP tell the story how big money has taken over MPP.
here is a interview with Dan Riffle in Business Weekly.
The real scary part of all of this is the ignorance and hate. the propels one view big business LMFAO
Which big business are you talking about the one that sets up a police force and court to sell and enforce making money off of pot stating monies from heaven are going to fall for good things ? You been smoking that spice shit huh. yea it will still be illegal.
In Tucson, it's too hot 9 months out of the year to wear anything remotely resembling 'fashion' , at least for men.
Another Reply:.... You seem to be agreeing with me (not the previous writer) that the big deficit was announced in 2012 rather than 2013. Yes, it was predictable and related to the end of the stimulus funds. I will not repeat what I wrote before, but it seems consistent with your recollections... I do well remember the terrible fallout it had on the schools, the great push for school closures that came that year, etc.
More people are registered as Independents in this state than as either Republicans or Democrats. Many of us do not fit well into either current party.
The 100-day plan is just that... it is not intended as a long-run vision statement. It was developed over months and I believe that it is realistic and would be a significant start to a long process of positive change.
The community input into the strategic plan was great, and some things in it make sense to me, but the plan as a whole is a mess. There is no way that an organization this large and troubled can create a coherent 5-year strategic plan that quickly. It is good to have a plan, but TUSD has the habit of sticking labels on messes and calling them successes.
I have much respect for the USP, which is far better than the PUSP put forward under the Fagen administration. I have a good relationship with Dr. Hawley and great respect for him. But some things in the USP were too ambitious, as I think the subsequent history has proved.
It is surely true that not all principals in the district can handle higher levels of responsibility, but I am not proposing to end oversight. A one-page 100-day plan is obviously not a complete plan, and I am definitely NOT the educational expert who knows all the answers. TUSD needs to make more and better use of the experience of other districts, in Arizona and nationwide, and a broader range of experts than it currently employs. The solution to bad curricular (or similar bad educational decisions) is not a board that has expertise in curriculum but a board that, directly or indirectly, puts into place a top curricular team.
Yes, my letters have been critical, and some things in TUSD are going well, but I am very concerned about the overall trajectory. I agree it would be good to write more about the positive things, and I will try to do so, but it is also important to draw attention to what is going sideways. Those are the things that tend to be left out of official TUSD communication.
I like your comment, and it seems that in substance we agree on much. If the board changes in a positive way, then I hope we can convince you that TUSD can indeed be a much stronger district than it is at present. I think that many of us outside of the current board majority have similar (not identical) goals, and I am optimistic that positive change can occur regardless of which of us is elected.
Congratulations Lupita from a fan from the RGV i remember staying up to see u n Rick Diaz in channel 5 god bless u very happy to see that u are doing great
I first heard the pending $17 million deficit mentioned in the summer of 2012. The explanation given at the time was that an entirely predictable expiration of federal stimulus funds was bringing the deficit about. The phone call from central admin to our school specifying the amount that needed to be cut immediately from our school's 2013-3014 budget came in April of 2013, 8-9 months after those at our site first heard of the pending deficit. It was the school's principal who communicated the information, both in the summer of 2012 and in the spring of 2013.
As a result of the cut and the demand from central that decisions be made in a 24-48 hour time frame, faculty and support staff eliminations were made that seriously impaired the functioning of our school during the 2013-3014 school year. At the same time, I was aware of other local districts that had used the same kinds of windows for planning their responses to changes in funding levels -- from summer of one year to spring of the next year -- to work successfully with their communities to secure funds that had, in these other districts, prevented the kinds of damage that occurred in our TUSD school.
Now, 3-4 years after all this occurred, the details of it are so vague in your mind that you aren't even sure the incident I refer to is the same as the deficit you remember staff bringing forward to the Board in 2012? You remember that staff brought a deficit forward but you don't know what fall-out that deficit had in the schools, or how that related to planning and discussions that did or did not take place at the Board level between the summer of 2012 and April of 2013? That is not confidence-inspiring, especially coming from someone who is asking for the community to re-install him in a leadership position based on his ability to improve the fiscal management of the district.
Setting aside the area of fiscal management of a complicated public institution, when it comes to education policy, my experience of your "leadership" during the time that I have been a parent in the district has been that you have been either unaware of, silent about, or actively working against the things that could have made a constructive difference to the quality of education offered to students in TUSD schools. Understanding what matters in K-12 education can come from a number of different kinds of experience, including being a K-12 parent, being a K-12 teacher, or being a credentialed expert in child development, pedagogy, elementary education, secondary education, the management of public educational institutions or the history of educational methods.
To understand, as a university faculty member with credentials in none of these areas, that most freshman who show up at the U of A are unprepared to do college-level work is not to understand how to alter a complex and troubled public school district in ways that can have some hope of improving educational outcomes for its students. Your frame of reference and qualifications, which are valuable in a University economics department, are not applicable in K-12. Your lack of a relevant knowledge or experience base has, over the course of the last 4 years, resulted at several different points in an inability to identify and advocate against K-12 policy adoptions in TUSD that have been damaging to students.
As for your political positions -- if they are an idiosyncratic combination of positions that don't align with any recognizable school of thought in politics or in education, how do you expect voters to understand what you stand for, or what you may decide to stand for on new policy issues that come before the Board for the first time in the future? Your Constituent Updates during the period when you have occupied a minority position on the Board have largely reflected your desire to criticize and eventually get rid of a Board majority which, I readily grant, has made some conspicuously poor decisions during the last 3 and 1/2 years. Once that majority is no longer there, I question whether the piecemeal 100-day plan you offer is able to offer a coherent vision for how the district should be operating.
You say you are for complying with the USP, though you like to remind the public that you didn't vote in support of it, so we should probably conclude that your idiosyncratic views are out of alignment with the views of experts in desegregation policy and community members who worked together with them to create the desegregation plan for the district. You are not in support of the district's Strategic Plan, another document created with significant district stakeholder participation.
What exactly is the constructive, unified educational philosophy behind your refusals to support plans desegregation experts and district stakeholders have created? Reducing class sizes and putting more spending in classrooms rather than administration is a noble goal, but in order for that transfer of funds to have good effects for educational outcomes, you have to know WHAT to put that money into. What KINDS of curricula, materials, school structures, and instructional plans will equip teachers to improve student achievement? Is there an appropriate role for standardized testing in K-12 education, and, if so, what is it? What problems have developed in schools through the mis-use of corporate-produced standardized testing? Board members on a school board which votes on multi-million dollar testing, curricular, textbook, and materials adoptions and budgets allocating funds to different areas should have more than a passing understanding of these issues. You do not seem to. Saying that principals and sites should have more discretion in applying funds is also not a solution. Principals in TUSD vary widely in competence and experience and giving them discretion in how funds are spent is no guarantee that their discretionary powers will not be mis-used. Sites differ in their degree of organization, levels of constructive parent participation, and preparedness for site-based governance. In this context, increasing site-based management will do little more than to increase inequity and make constituents at many sites vulnerable to abuse.
The TUSD audit committee might be a good place for you to contribute constructively to the management of the district's affairs, but many TUSD constituents feel that based on your poorly informed written opinions on how K-12 education in TUSD should be managed and your track record in office for eight difficult years of the district's history, it would be best for the district if you did not continue to serve on its Board.
Look at the funding for the "No on 205" advertisements. What a basket of deplorables. I say for for 205, just to upset the big money boys.
Well said, Billy. I'll never forget reading about that album in Creem or Fusion, possibly even in Rolling Stone, and eventually finding a copy when I went off to college a few years later. It was a sealed cutout copy, in fact, priced at $1.99 I'm guessing. (Later I would find another sealed cutout. I still have it. Still sealed. No, I will not entertain offers.) The Jordan-Loney team was a powerhouse for sure, and that song still holds up today. I've long broadcast my intention to have my family play Shake Some Action at my funeral, but after reading your essay, I'm now also thinking about making sure that we have some sort of Irish wake where we/they can spin the pre-Sire Groovies music as well. -Fred Mills, Asheville NC
I find myself nodding, nearly in agreement, with Danehy. He appears to recognize that Clinton is a seriously deeply flawed candidate who has earned the distrust of a majority of voters. And I can't argue with anyone who sees Trump, not the Republicans or conservatives in general, as a bombastic fool, an indictment of our system of selecting presidential candidates.
"People who want viable third-party candidates should come up with viable third parties." Really? We obviously do not have viable political parties (unless the term refers to sharks and cockroaches). We have two inbred mega-organizations representing the political interests of minorities of voters surviving on the largesse of the most wealthy and powerful.
How about viable (like adaptable and strong) Democrat and Republican parties as a first step? I've been around long enough to say I've never seen a presidential election offering two choices, one worse than the other, to slither from the pit and take the reins of power.
It's an interesting album. It definitely has its moments and it is similar in certain ways, but I truly believe it isn't "near every bit as good as Sticky Fingers".
Although, when you let it stand on its own, without comparing it to one of the greatest albums made within the last 50 years, it holds its own pretty well.
I would also like to thank you for your information and your response. It's nice to know that trolls aren't the only type of people that access this site. 😊
I did a bit more research and found that there was apparently a Brookings Institution study that What, Again may have been referring to. It was cited on CBS news, I think. What you say about rankings for cities over 500,000 makes sense. So, the third worst city on the Brookings Institution list is Philadelphia, and Philadelphia has a completely different set of circumstances, different demographics, a different history, different culture--I actually lived nearby for a while years ago. Could it be that there is a common thread here that may not be a Tucson-specific issue? I would imagine that debt, financial mismanagement and good old-fashioned corruption and graft may be big woes for any large-ish city. Also, there does seem to be a pattern of Sun Belt cities running out of money in recent years due to the fact that many snowbirds dumped their winter homes and seriously cut back on spending following the recession. This holds true for cities in Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, and SoCal as well. So no, I don't think the "anti-growth" card is entirely accurate. Thanks for the added info and fact-checking.
(Reply to) Reply to Stegeman: I always believed, and said at the time, that the $17 million deficit was exaggerated, to create a public case for closing schools. (But my memory was that the $17 million was TUSD's messaging in spring 2012, not 2013, so we may be talking about different situations.) There was a revenue/spending imbalance, but not that large. The board relies substantially on staff for budget analysis, perhaps more than it should, and in 2011 the staff itself provided no warning of that imbalance. This is somewhat similar to what happened with 301. As you say, I am willing to accept my part of the responsibility for the 301 buildup (though I usually voted against the 301 plans), which is more than we have heard from the other board members. I have never claimed to get everything right. Obviously I need to study the district's audits and financial reporting more closely.
I have also never claimed to stay true to a "progressive" agenda. That is one reason I left the Democratic Party. My policy positions do not line up closely with either party (at least as those parties are presently constituted), and I am uncomfortable being accountable to either party's platform.
A well-functioning audit committee can greatly help the board to keep abreast of budget and financial issues and potential problems, but the current majority has eroded or eliminated the audit committee's independence, which I think is a major loss.
Yes, the lurching around in the budget, from which the magnet schools for example have greatly suffered, is absurd. I would like to reform the entire budget process, and that is one reason that I have voted against the budget for years. Reforming that process will take at least one more vote on the board. I think Betts would be a good choice.
Yes, there are many issues where I would like to be reporting more to the public, your point is well taken, but the prolix letters are a lot of work. I should probably write more letters and shorter ones -- many persons have given this advice.
And lousy presidents.
When Wrong, Again mentions that Tucson is the 6th poorest city, he, much like the rest of his trolling ilk, is only mentioning part of the facts.
The whole truth is that Tucson is currently rated as the 6th for U.S cities with populations over 500,000. He always fails to include that part.
Although I do understand why he does this. What he has to say doesn't hold as much weight when you reveal the whole truth. This is also typical of his trolling ilk.
No, TUSD Parent #101, it's people who excuse the conspicuously malfeasant Board majority and CEO who are destroying our kids's schools, and the community is very well aware of it, thanks to the "political IEC" you mention and other persistent members of the community who are working hard to get this district cleaned up.
It's typical of your crowd to disparage and insult anyone who speaks the truth about what is going on in this district. "TUSD Parent #101" is a good screen name: it seems you have mastered TUSD-politics 101: justify and excuse the ongoing malfeasance in the district by blaming and deriding the messenger, as both "Disappointed Parent" and "Another Disappointed Parent" pointed out.
Are you perhaps one of the people who has been given a TUSD job you didn't qualify for by the Grijalva network? Or someone whose company has been awarded a bid because of a relationship you have or in exchange for donations or kick-backs of some sort? (Cf. The hiring of Grijalva's mother-in-law as a principal over candidates ranked more highly by the selection committee; the awarding of the strategic plan consulting contract to friends of Sanchez's; or the large donations from ESI, the company with a $21 million contract for managing outsourced subs, to the campaigns of the two incumbent candidates who had voted for the contract, Kristel Foster and Cam Juarez.) Or are you a parent with a kid enrolled in University High School, Fruchthendler or Sam Hughes, one of the TUSD schools which benefits from the current Superintendent's patronage while schools on the south and west sides go begging? Or a friend of Ann-Eve Pedersen's? There are plenty of explanations for people taking the kind of positions you take -- none of them worthy of respect.
There are problems with the Arizona legislature and governor, but those of us who are HONEST admit that there are problems with TUSD Board and Administration as well. Underfunding does not excuse malfeasance, nor does it mean that constituents do not have a right to expect honesty and proper management from those running our public institutions. All of our public school districts in Arizona are underfunded and there are many that do much, much better than TUSD does. It's well past time for TUSD to accept responsibility and clean up its act, and it starts with the Board and CEO.
Tucson Weekly |
7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation