"If your candidate won't agree to fund our public schools immediately with at least $1.7 billion in additional funding....tell them that you cannot vote for them. They have just told you that they side with the powerful and the greedy." -- Paul Stapleton-Smith
Sorry, Mr. Stapleton-Smith, your political party is not doing a good job keeping the people on the receiving end of those public education tax dollars from engaging in malfeasant and anti-progressive behaviors, including colluding with "the powerful and the greedy" on the outsourcing of subs and then receiving campaign contributions drawn from an account co-owned by a marketing executive at the company managing outsourced, underpaid labor , so I won't be using that question as a litmus test for candidates this fall.
A better litmus test question for candidates would be, "What will you do in office to make sure public schools are BOTH well funded AND well managed, ensuring that progressive labor policies are implemented, central administrators are not ridiculously overpaid, funds are not wasted in unnecessary legal battles with the court overseeing implementation of the deseg order, constructive collaboration with the deseg authorities occur, and that funds granted are applied for the benefit of students?"
Take a look, in the Three Sonorans article linked above, at the list of Democratic party elected officials that have endorsed the two sadly tarnished, underperforming incumbent candidates for the TUSD school board who received donations from the sub-outsourcing company. Those endorsements undermine the credibility of the elected officials granting them -- and the credibility of the Pima County Democratic Party -- rather than adding credibility to the candidates endorsed.
So don't try to pretend your party has a burning passion to help "poor and working families." I'll believe that as soon as party operatives start lining up behind reforming TUSD, a public school district whose never-ending quid-pro-quo scandals and shocking mismanagement for the last three years has been and continues to be an embarrassment to the cause of public education.
"TW has not yet received a copy of the campaign's flash drive but has requested from Team Babeu, so I have not reviewed what he offered."
Silly Nintzel. Do you really fancy the TW to be a real newspaper? You're not a journalist. You write editorials...for a free publication. People pick up the TW to read the restaurant reviews (or booze reviews, these days) and to see what events are going on in the community. Ask a Mexican! is less biased than you are.
Cornering sounds just like what 98% of public schools did with troublemakers until Liberals made being a thug the new norm.
You must mean honest politicians like the Clintons and Obama. That there is funny.
(Sigh) Another alcoholic beverage promotional piece...oh, but it's for a good cause, right? "...to raise awareness of the need for habitat conservation and preserving the character of southern Arizona." What "character" is that? The one that the Native population bestowed on the area by living lightly on the land? Or the one that limits development just enough to allow rich, mostly non-Native homeowners in the foothills to preserve their views and property values?
So video really HAS killed the radio star, as well as print journalism, and it will likely soon kill journalism itself. Now only Jim Nintzel's work distinguishes the Weekly from the lifestyle mags /rags that litter the Republican areas of town.
Is she okay? A hard kick to the sternum is nothing to sneeze at.
Babeu is creepy.
#publicschoolsfirst A good man sums up Dark Money Ducey's "plan" for our public schools. A good man points out the lies of the greedy and the rich. We often seem uncomfortable talking about raw power. We don't like the discussion of greed. That's why we are here. Public education is being choked to death by those that have power. At the root of this strangulation, is greed.
If your candidate won't agree to fund our public schools immediately with at least $1.7 billion in additional funding ( which barely restores public school funding to 2007 levels, adjusted for inflation), tell them that you cannot vote for them. They have just told you that they side with the powerful and the greedy. They don't give a damn about the opportunirties denied to the poor and working families. These are our tax dollars, and our children. Step up to your responsibility to elect candidates that put them first.
The process of "cornering" sounds like the cousin to solitary confinement. And if the school fails to get them to fear the process they would probably wins up in prison and experience that and much worse. Thanks for trying to improve behavior without drugs. The country would be better served if more would do it.
Jeff Flake and Mitt Romney are both putting the "Establishment" and its safety over the continuing decline in the life of the middle class. Both have a most comfortable life and enough money to last them to infinity and beyond. Both are blind to the FACT that the policies that Hillary represents, and apparently what they represent, have been bad, continue to be bad both now and in the future, for the average American. Jeff and Mitt are clearly elitists, just like Hilary. I remember the fear of Ronald Reagan becoming President; I also remember all the good he did for
the country. I hope there is a housecleaning of the Republican Party, and the new wave will be politicians who care for all Americans, the Constitution, the rule of Law, and the sovereign United States of America. Finally, Citizenship and voting are privileges, not rights; these privileges should be treasured, respected, and preserved.
Again, unfortunately it's just not that simple. While employers are generally free to prohibit impairment on the worksite, the lack of a prima facie standard for impairment as related to marijuana makes determination subjective.
When combined with Arizona law explicitly prohibiting discrimination in employment against patients prescribed medical marijuana, as well as protections under FMLA and the ADA, there is good reason as an employer to be very cautious in handling the issue.
Yeah- @Matt its work its a job not a comfort in. If you can't work under their set of rules then you can guess it your not working there. Either become your own entrepreneur with your own job and rules or don't work there. Yeah there is no wrongful termination if the job says ZERO tolerance and you violate your own agreement you sign before the day you start that states that its your own fault. That simple. Becoming a liability is not what any job wants form its employees. Your there to work and that is it.
I don't understand how he went from bragging about his mother's dedication to calling his respondents racist. The US can not afford for more women to join the workforce. We still have high unemployment and high under employed.
But both political parties offer the drug of government addiction. It's all they ever accomplish.
Oh dear. If you are using MP3s, Bluetooth is the least of your problems.......
Now if your mobile device cab play some files with a bit more resolution, well, wires are the way to go.
Do not despair, Bluetooth and other wireless formats will improve.
"If you want single moms to enter the workforce and pull themselves up by their bootstraps, you have to help with safe and reliable childcare because otherwise, they can't keep their jobs."
The fallacy behind this statement -- and behind much of our public discourse about paid child care -- is that caring for children, when they are your own, is not work. The whole economy continues to run on and benefit from the lie at the heart of the system: that the work of caring for and supporting the development of your dependent children is not "work," whether it is the extremely labor-intensive care of infants and pre-school children, or care and homework help for kids after school, or volunteering in schools that are unable to meet the full range of kids' needs exclusively through the paid labor they are able to fund. This is work that, in terms of its ability to build the human capital necessary to run the next generation's economy, is the most beneficial and valuable work being done in this country. Until we find a way to classify it as beneficial labor to which financial security independent of a "supporting" spouse's earning capacity must be attached, we will continue to find ourselves unable to build a better society, with kids whose development and flourishing are fully supported and women whose constructive labor receives the return in economic security it should receive.
Check out this piece in the NYTimes:
Or this book by an economic journalist and Pulitzer Prize nominee:
On another topic: both sides of the above debate in this comment stream fall well below the mark in achieving anything that could be called civility or constructive dialogue. But it is the so-called liberals / progressives, including Nintzel, who end up looking worse. Their supposed "compassionate outlook" repeatedly produces remarks full of contempt for those who differ from them.
I've left the article and the comment stream with reduced respect for Nintzel, someone I had previously thought better of.
Yeah - it's actually a little bit more complicated than that. While federally illegal, there are still potential problems with wrongful termination, reasonable accommodations, and so on.
Perhaps I should have written "the wife of one of whose employees gave such generous contributions," but when the money is coming from a joint account on which a marketing exec whose company just receive a $20+ million contract from the district is one of the co-proprietors, one wonders just how much difference it makes who signs the check.
According to the Star article on the subject, Foster and Juarez expect us to believe that they didn't know there was a connection between the company to which the contract was granted and the unusually large donations to their Tucson-area campaigns from someone living in the Phoenix area. Seems like a local school board candidate who received a donation of this size from an out of town resident might have immediately picked up the phone and tried to find out who the donor was and what motivated the donation.
Could we blame voters for concluding that if these candidates didn't do that -- and didn't voluntarily return the donations well before the connection between the donations and the marketing exec at the company was "outed" in the media -- it is a clear sign that these incumbent candidates don't have sufficient intelligence, caution, or pragmatism to be entrusted again with elected office?
In any case, if we want to increase the public's confidence that providing more funding to public school districts will do the community some good, the electorate should ensure that every foolish governing board member who has a record in office of doing things that undermine public trust will, after the November elections, have to find another form of volunteer "service" to the community.
Frances -- you should offer that advice to HT Sanchez and his supporters on the TUSD Board as well as to Ducey. They are the sort to take the tip just as much as the governor is. What would the Perkins of the FDR administration think of TUSD's outsourcing of subs and reducing their ability to qualify for benefits? And the two incumbent candidates (Foster & Juarez) who can be relied upon to support HT Sanchez's agenda even in the many cases when this agenda betrays the progressive cause received embarrassing campaign donations from the wife of an exec at the company managing outsourced subs.
So why not be properly bipartisan in your free advice to elected officials, Frances?
Wake up. Marijuana is illegal federally no matter what the state passes. Until then its illegal end of story
Tucson Weekly |
7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation