Tom, you couldn't have spent much time in L.A. to come away with the impression that you noted, because L.A. drivers are models of decorum compared to Tucson drivers, thanks largely to much higher car insurance premiums and lots of brake-checking scamsters eager to exploit the tort laws. Climate, altitude and geography certainly contribute to the current presence of both Tucson and Phoenix at the top of the list for "most aggressive drivers in the country." I suspect another culprit may be that SO MANY Tucsonans apparently insist on working an 8am-5pm schedule, which shouldn't be necessary (and which science has recently found NOT to be optimal). Either drivers enjoy the experience of sitting in bumper-to-bumper traffic, or employers are inflexible about working hours. Hey, there's a great subject for a journalistic investigation! The Weekly still does those, right?
Copied from another source. Feel free to repost everywhere:
"Calls are what all the congresspeople pay attention to. Every day, their staff and the Rep./Senator get a report of the 3 most-called-about topics for that day at each of their offices (in DC and local offices), and exactly how many people said what about each of those topics.
They're also sorted by zip code and area code. And this is IMPORTANT: Republican callers generally outnumber Democrat callers 4-1, and when it's a particular issue that single-issue-voters pay attention to (like gun control, or planned parenthood funding), it's often closer to 11-1, and that has pushed Republican congressfolks on the fence to vote with the other Republicans. In the last 8 years, Republicans have called, and Democrats have not."
Emails and online petitions are usually ignored, because interest groups have automated the process with pre-filled comments that one only has to add one's name to and click submit. Your elected representatives are not going to pay attention to communication that they know only took 30 seconds of your time.
Republicans are playing a "forest" game with this strategy of floating a bunch of bad bills, in the expectation that one or two will eventually pass, even if in watered-down form. Too many of their opponents are perceiving it as a "trees" game and are going to exhaust themselves by shouting in the streets and getting into a lather over each one. This is what the Repubs want, because they know if they can force a bill into law that even they know is bad, it will take lots of money and time and effort on the part of their opponents to file lawsuits to challenge those laws.
Marching/"raising consciousness" is fine, but one's efforts would be better spent calling the offices of your reps/senators and giving them a hot ear, and also donating to groups like the AZ Center for Law in the Public Interest, the state chapter of the ACLU, the Sierra Club - all of whom have fought the legislature in court, often successfully.
Oh, Bob. Regarding your review of "La La Land": Really? Original? I guess it's been some time since you've seen REAL classics that clearly inspired multiple facets of this film, like, say "An American in Paris," "Singin' in the Rain," "A Star is Born," the Astaire-Rogers oeuvre and lesser films like "Xanadu,"and "Fame." Emma Stone was very good, but Gosling nearly ruined the film with his saturnine presence; comparing him to Sinatra and Gene Kelly is just ludicrous. The film really needed the ebullience of a Gene Kelly or the dapper charm of a Fred Astaire to really make it fly. It also needed help in the writing department; the script elements certainly betray Chazelle's youth and lack of real-life experience. I lived in L.A. for more than two decades and I cannot recall another film that so heavily romanticizes the city and the lives of its characters. Most actors in L.A. never get (paid) work in films or TV, and the small percentage who do mostly get work in commercials and as (non-union) extras. Most would gladly eat out of dumpsters for months for the chance to get a SAG card. For Stone's character to apparently limit her auditions to film and TV work shows extreme naivete, at best.
The John Legend character's assertion that "Jazz is dying" is simply not true; jazz has enjoyed a small but healthy niche market since the decline of big bands in the '50s. Given that jazz clubs are few in L.A., and regularly feature established artists of the genre with a lot more experience than Gosling's character has, some of his character's actions and attitudes are largely preposterous. How can his character have any "depth," as you put it, since there's so little of his backstory revealed to the audience?
Walter Kirn wrote a recent piece in Harper's in which he concisely skewers nostalgia, a concept in which this film is drenched: "It [nostalgia] tells romantic lies. It breeds reactionary sentiments by glorifying and simplifying what was and devaluing what is."
This belongs in the "Police Dispatch" section; what a bunch of silliness all around. Anyone who would seek the experience of consuming a "craft" beer because of its ostensible exclusivity deserves what they get. Any bar owner who would sell it without informing the customer of the unusual premium price in advance deserves what they get too.
The only puzzling aspect of this story is why Jim Nintzel thought it was newsworthy, which it could only have been if Ms. Sedgwick were conducting public business at the time of the incident.
It would be wise to heed the words of Diane Ravitch, whose 2013 book "Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement..." hit the nail on the head: "School choice turns parents into consumers, not citizens...We have a civic responsibility to support public education." Along the same lines, she said that the most important function of public education "is to prepare children for the duties and responsibilities of citizenship."
Hasn't this city reached peak brewery yet? Why do you keep using the "Chow" section to promote booze merchants?
All Comments »
Tucson Weekly |
7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation