GReeeat title for this article! I agree with the above comment, and it is one of many reasons that I have been attending board meetings forever! I did indeed fall asleep at one or two of the early ones and have now developed strategies to make sure that doesn't happen. As I said at the meeting last night, there are few opportunities to make a comment to the whole board, and they need to be preserved, not limited. Placing the call to the audience at the end means that comments come AFTER votes, and given that agenda items are not printed until a few days ahead of meetings, it removes the option to actually have input on agenda items. While teachers, presenters etc. have kids to put to bed (Hicks' logic for why these things should happen earlier) SO DO PARENTS (!!!!!). Altogether this proposal was highly exclusionary, exactly the wrong direction to go in TUSD. Maybe a little less pontificating and raising specious arguments by the Board could help to shorten meetings.
Great column Mari, as they all are. I hope the fact that your son no longer goes to TUSD doesn't mean that you will no longer write about it, because we all need your critical lense on this district.
Despite telling the community throughout the "visioning process" that school closures would NOT be a slash and burn move, when the RIF was being discussed by board members the other night, Dr. Pedicone, looking somewhat exasperated, noted that (paraphrasing here) personnel/teacher layoffs and reductions are the major way TO save money...which kind of tells me that the talk of "if we had closed more schools we wouldn't have to lay people off" was just another way of laying blame on the community. Whenever TUSD folks talk about its bad reputation in town, they talk about "better advertising". I love the schools, teachers and kids, but it takes a whole lot of advertising to drown out ongoing labor instability and disrespect for the workers who make it all happen. How 'bout changing THAT?!
I fail to see how extended background checks add up to disarming people. I think the anti-gun control folks just don't have the &*%%s to say that they prefer that the rest of us remain hostage to their supposed God given "right" to carry a killing machine. I definitely didn't agree with Gabby when she was a politician--too much support for killing machines of all kinds--but I certainly agree with her now. WHAT ARE YOU ALL SO SCARED OF, you big tough-talking violence loving 2nd Amendment supporters? Do you really think the legality of your guns will make a difference if you feel you have to take over the big bad government? Please take all your fears and put them towards something more constructive than supporting a mulit-million dollar industry that thrives on death.
I'm surprised that you would run a perfectly legible and intelligible piece with the heading "we don't know what this is about but we are running it anyway"--it just seems so disrespectful! I thought that letters to the editor were OUR chance, as readers, to express ourselves and to opine, not yours. You have the whole newspaper to get your point of view across. If you are going to be so frankly rude about someone's letter, simply don't print it. But printing it and then ridiculing the person who wrote it (especially when its not rocket science to figure out what its about-) seems really unnecessary. All of that aside, I take it as a perfectly reasonable story about someone crashing back to Earth, with all of the human idiots contained thereon, after happily composing "lets make it better" letters in her head. Full disclosure: I know this woman, brilliant, creative and open-minded, and I am a dog owner who likes her dogs off leash. So I think I truly DO know what this letter is about. Notwithstanding, I make it a point to be respectful of others' preferences when it comes to my dogs. AND I agree that when it comes to the meek inheriting the earth, I won't be in that number. An apology from you would be nice, but some interest and a desire to understand what is written would be even nicer.
Love animals, touch them, hold them. And then kill them. Y'all have a very strange way of expressing and teaching your love for conservation.
Pretty frustrating stuff. I'd move out of such a neighborhood if this went through. One thing gun owners don't get is how very unsavory their a) preference, b) hobby or c) lunacy is to those who don't believe that violence solves problems. Personally, I'd LOVE a registry, like the one we have for sexual predator, for gun owners. They get outraged at such a suggestion, but had I been Adam Lanza's neighbor, I would've wanted to know his household had 5 guns in it. I would have certainly thought twice about BEING a neighbor....
But I have a different question--how is this group able to do background checks when we were told by a person who runs the gun shows at Tucson Convention center that that is impossible? She told me that only certified gun vendors can do background checks. Is this group one of those? We were told that it was virtually impossible to expand background checks because of a heightened concern for privacy ... yet this nutcase and his backers have access to the files to do background checks? The world has gone crazy. The Beatles got it right for Arizona...happiness is a warm gun.
All Comments »
Tucson Weekly |
3280 E. Hemisphere Loop, Suite 180, Tucson AZ 85706 |
(520) 294-1200 |
Powered by Foundation